Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

TAY ROAD BRIDGE CONFIRMATION BILL

Order for Consideration read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now considered.

Question amended, by leaving out the words "now considered" and adding the words "committed to a Committee of the whole House"—[The Chairman of Ways and Means]—instead thereof, and, as amended, agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee upon Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Oldham (Drowning Accidents)

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that seven Oldham children have been drowned in recent years in neglected standing waters adjacent to abandoned mills; and what steps he proposes to take to enable the focal corporation to deal with these dangers.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I know that there have been fatal accidents in these places. The Oldham Corporation obtained powers in 1960 to require the

fencing of dangerous mill lodges, and there are powers in the Highways Act, 1959, under which local authorities can require the fencing of dangerous places adjoining streets. These powers should be sufficient to enable the Oldham Corporation to deal with the situation.

Mr. Hale: While congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on this first appearance at Question Time in his new capacity, may I say that, although Oldham has limited and thoroughly inadequate powers under its local Act, the adjoining urban district of Chadderton possesses none at all? This is a grave problem which has resulted in loss of life, but as the right hon. Gentleman, with his customary courtesy, has offered to discuss the matter with me, I will avail myself of that privilege.

Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to the hon. Member. All local authorities share some of these powers under the Highways Act, 1959.

Industrial Areas (Trees and Shrubs)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a statement giving details of the results obtained since has Department's circular was issued on the need for the planting of more trees in industrial areas; what further action it is now proposed to take to clean and brighten industrial areas, towns and cities and to increase the planting of turf, shrubs, plants and trees; and if he will issue a circular calling for a three-years' intensive drive towards this objective to be carried out by all towns and cities.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): There are increasing examples of tree-planting in towns. Much as my right hon. Friend agrees with the hon. Member's objectives he does not think further stimulus is needed.

Clean Air Act

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will arrange for an intensive drive towards the full implementation of the Clean Air


Act to be made before next winter within the industrial areas which suffer most from air pollution; and if he will require special attention to be given to Stoke-on-Trent, Salford, Trafford Park, Manchester, Bolton and Warrington.

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend will continue to urge all black area authorities in England and Wales, including those named by the hon. Member, to make vigorous use of their powers under the Act.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the hon. Member aware that we were hoping that, with the coming of new Ministers, there would be more initiative in his Department? Is he further aware that we have not had much encouragement for that view from the replies to the last two Questions? Has not the time arrived when industrial areas of this kind should be subjected to the drive by the Ministry which is essential if we are to keep up with the rest of Europe in this respect?

Mr. Corfield: While I appreciate the hon. Member's views, I do not think that there is evidence that local authorities as a whole are backward in enforcing the general provisions of the Act. We should like to see faster progress in the establishment of smoke control, but it would not be justified to pick out the particular areas the hon. Member has mentioned, since there are many other areas in similar conditions.

Mrs. Slater: Is it not the case that many of the local authorities in these areas do an awful lot to try to clean up the atmosphere but that there is great reluctance by some industries to install new machinery which would make it possible completely to eliminate the smoke nuisance? I am not referring to the pottery industry, which has done a lot, but mostly to such concerns as iron foundries. In my constituency we have a dreadful case. Excuse after excuse is made and it is time that the Minister gave instructions.

Mr. Corfield: If the hon. Lady would like to write to me, I will look into any particular case, but it may well be that she is speaking of industries controlled under the Alkali Act. That is a different question.

Local Authority Borrowing (Short-term Loans)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how much local authority borrowing is currently on short term; and what is the average rate of interest being paid on these loans.

Mr. Corfield: For local authorities in the United Kingdom the amount of temporary borrowing outstanding at 31st December, 1961, was £1,080 million and the average rate of interest upon it in May, 1962, was 4½ per cent.

Mr. Boyden: Is it not a fact that too much money is being borrowed at short term? Is not the rate of interest too high, and is not a great deal of it "hot" money from abroad? What is the hon. Gentleman going to do about what should be a stable element in the English economy?

Mr. Corfield: I have no information about whether it is hot money from abroad, as the hon. Gentleman described it. I agree that excessive reliance on short-term money may have its dangers, but I think that it is a matter of opinion where the limit lies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently asked for a full appraisal of all aspects of local authority capital finance, and no doubt this is a matter which will be considered.

Mr. MacColl: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Radcliffe Committee specifically criticised the proportion of local authority investment at short term and that his right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) has also criticised it? Is the hon. Gentleman in consultation with the Treasury about the proportion of local authority investment which should be at short term?

Mr. Corfield: As I indicated, this matter is being considered by the Treasury and I think that it would be unwise to commit myself any further at this stage.

New Towns (Local Committees)

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will make an order under Section 2 (3)


of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act, 1960, adding to the list of bodies in the Schedule to that Act the committees for new towns described in paragraph 2 of the First Schedule to the New Towns Act, 1959

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. The character and functions of the local committees set up by the Commission for the New Towns are quite different from those of the other bodies listed in the Act of 1960.

Mr. Stewart: Would not the Minister accept that the functions of the bodies already listed differ a great deal from one another, so that really that is not an answer at all? As the decisions taken by these committees are of great interest to townspeople, will he reconsider his reply?

Sir K. Joseph: I think not, because although they are naturally of great interest to townspeople, the Commission will devise its own methods of publicity. These are really only management committees dealing with what are essentially, in most cases, likely to be personal matters where attendance at meetings is not in the interests of the people concerned.

Trosley Towers, Kent (Proposed Development)

Mr. Kirk: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he will be able to announce his decision regarding the proposed development at Trosley Towers. Kent.

Mr. J. Rodgers: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is yet in a position to give his decision with regard to proposed developments at Trosley Towers.

Sir K. Joseph: Soon, I hope.

Mr. Kirk: So do I. It is now nine months since the inquiry. Why has it taken so long to get a decision on this grave matter?

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend will appreciate that this raises substantial issues and that we have to make sure that we get the decision right.

Mr. Ede: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been outstanding for a very long time, and that

the preservation of the skyline of the North Downs is a matter which should be decided very quickly?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir, but as the right hon. Gentleman knows there are seldom situations which drag on for so many years which are absolutely simple, and we have had to study the considerations here very carefully.

Gypsies

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the present situation in Kent, what approach has been made by the county council for assistance in finding sites for gypsies and other travellers in accordance with the offer in his Departmental Circular No. 6/62; what discussions have taken place between the officials of his Department and of the county council; and what progress has been made to deal with the problems involved.

Mr. Corfield: Several discussions between representatives of the Department and of the county council on how best to meet the needs disclosed by the council's survey in February show that it is bound to take time to find and provide suitable sites. But the county council is meeting the district councils this week and my right hon. Friend very much hopes that there will be some results from this.

Mr. Dodds: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in one incident in January 300 people were deposited by the local authority on the side of one of Britain's main trunk roads? So far only pious hopes have been expressed about it. Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that I am deeply grateful to his right hon. Friend's predecessor for the wonderful spadework he has done in this respect? I ask the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend not to waste time and allow that work to be frittered away before the winter.

Mr. Corfield: I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend is determined to show the same enthusiasm as was shown by his predecessor. I assume that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the


A.2. As he knows, a planning appeal is pending, and we shall deal with that as quickly as we possibly can.

Mr. C. Hughes: In view of the paucity of information about gypsies, will the hon. Gentleman discuss with his right hon. Friend the possibility of publishing a White Paper when these surveys have been completed, giving a summary of the findings so that the House and the country may be in a better position to judge what should be done for them?

Mr. Corfield: I will certainly consider that suggestion, or any other means of making the information public.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what is the nature of the replies from the Buckingham County Council and the Essex County Council to his Circular No. 6/62 of 8th February, 1962, on the gypsy problem.

Mr. Corfield: The Buckingham County Council has stated that it is making a survey of the problem and will inform my right hon. Friend of the result. We have not yet heard from the Essex County Council.

Mr. Dodds: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that both counties have shocking records in this respect, and that the Essex County Council recently got rid of 100 of these people, with their caravans and animals, from county council ground, by dumping them on the side of the main London-Southend road? Will he bear in mind that because of persecution in Essex, through its failure to face the problem, many of these people have been driven over to Kent? That is not a solution.

Mr. Corfield: I certainly undertake to look into that problem and communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. C. Hughes: In view of the urgency of this problem, can the Parliamentary Secretary say when he expects the results of these surveys to reach him, and when he will be able to give the House some indication of the action which the Government will take in this matter?

Mr. Corfield: I expect that this will be almost immediately after the House resumes after the Summer Recess.

Mr. R. Edwards: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy in regard to Circular No. 6/62 of 8th February, 1962, on gypsies and other travellers.

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend is glad to have this opportunity to endorse the policy set out in Circular No. 6/62, and hopes that action on the lines suggested in the circular will be taken by the local authorities concerned wherever the need arises.

Mr. Edwards: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the circular issued by the previous Minister was a very human and constructive document, and that hon. Members on this side of the House who are concerned about human rights hope that this policy will be pressed forward so that the plight of the Romanies and other travellers will be alleviated at least by the winter?

Mr. Corfield: I think that I made clear in Answers to earlier Questions that it is the desire of my right hon. Friend to pursue, the policy of his predecessor with equal vigour. I can assure the hon. Member that there is no monopoly of humanity on the other side of the House.

Sewerage Plant, Hornchurch

Mr. Lagden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the lack of sewerage plant in the Hornchurch area.

Mr. Corfield: Sewage disposal arrangements in Hornchurch are admittedly far from adequate. Conditions are particularly bad at the Bretons Farm Works, which is due to be closed when Dagenham's Riverside Works have been reconstructed. Plans are being prepared for the reconstruction of the Riverside Works and my right hon. Friend hopes the local authority will press ahead urgently.

Mr. Lagden: While thanking my horn. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that medical opinion in the area about the state of the sewerage plant is that it causes offensive odours, ill-health, nausea and vomiting, and will he kindly bear in mind that this is a matter of great urgency indeed?

Mr. Corfield: I assure my hon. Friend that we regard this as a matter of urgency. I think that he is aware of some of the causes which have led to delay, and I am sure he will realise that these are not entirely the fault of my Department.

Mr. Lagden: In view of the courtesy and consideration shown in that reply, I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Local Government Commissions (Proposals)

Mr. MacColl: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what proposals have been submitted to him by the local government commissions; what action he proposes to take on them; and when.

Sir K. Joseph: The Local Government Commission for England submitted final reports and proposals on the West Midlands Special Review Area and the West Midlands General Review Area in May, 1961, and on the East Midlands General Review Area in July, 1961.
Under the Local Government Act, 1958, I am required to publish the reports and consider any objections before deciding what action to take. Inquiries have been held into the objections to a number of major proposals and I am now studying the Inspectors' reports. I shall announce my decisions as soon as I can.

Mr. MacColl: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that is likely to be, in view of the uncertainty that is bound to be caused by having these proposals floating around undecided?

Sir K. Joseph: I recognise that but I think that I must reserve my position. The decisions must be carefully considered, and I can only repeat that they will be made each in their own turn as soon as possible.

Old People's Home, Paignton

Mr. F. M. Bennett: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he expects to confirm loan sanction consent for the purchase and erection of a home for old people in Paignton,

under Section 119 of the Housing Act, 1957.

Mr. Corfield: Formal application for loan sanction in respect of this scheme was received only on 11th July, This will be considered promptly as soon as detailed plans are supplied.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend realise that that reply is rather misleading? Does he further realise that this scheme, which was initiated entirely by voluntary effort, was initiated as long ago as January, 1961, and that approval in principle from his Ministry was forthcoming over a year ago? Does he realise that people in my constituency, who are doing this entirely voluntarily, are becoming tired of playing the game of snakes and ladders? Will my hon. Friend make sure that in future there are rather more ladders and fewer snakes?

Mr. Corfield: I accept my hon. Friend's request, but I hope that he will consider the element of delay that has been caused, no doubt purely through misunderstanding, at the other end of the ladder.

British Railways

Mr. Strauss: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what communication he has received from local authorities about the financing of British Railways' losses out of rates; and what replies he has sent.

Sir K. Joseph: None, Sir.

Mr. Strauss: Is the Minister aware that Dr. Beeching and the Minister of Transport have suggested that the burden of paying for the deficit on local railway services should be placed on local authorities? When local authorities protest strongly against the proposal, as they are bound to do, could not he suggest to them that they might meet this purpose and pay off the deficit by organising flag days?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not altogether agree with the right hon. Gentleman As far as my records show, on 4th July my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport told the House that he has no proposals for subsidising railway services from rates.

Mr. Strauss: But is not the Minister aware that in a previous speech the Minister of Transport suggested that this was one of the sources from which deficits arising on local train services might be met?

Sir K. Joseph: indicated dissent.

Mr. H. Butler: Is the Minister aware that the ratepayers of the new town of Basildon have been asked to bear the expense of a new station?

Sir K. Joseph: That is a different Question from the one that I am answering, but if the hon. Member puts it down it will be considered.

Mains Sewerage Facilities, Rural Areas

Mr. Hilton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will state the percentage of the rural population whose homes are not connected with mains sewerage facilities.

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend regrets that this information is not available.

Mr. Hilton: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that far too many properties in rural areas are without this important amenity? Is he aware that I was recently in his own constituency and that I know that the same problem exists there? Why should people in rural areas be expected to live in such primitive conditions in 1962? I appreciate that there has been a change of Minister and may I ask whether, in consultation with his right hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman will give this matter further and urgent consideration?

Mr. Corfield: I will certainly give it consideration, but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that figures of this sort can be very misleading. As I am sure he will know, in many of the remoter rural areas the figures do not show whether other types of drainage are adequate or inadequate. In many cases they are adequate.

Sir H. Harrison: Would not my hon. Friend agree that rural district councils have been most forward-looking in the last ten years, and that, with Government support, a large number of schemes

for sewerage and sewage disposal have been successfully carried out?

Mr. Corfield: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for asking that question. Over the last five years nearly £70 million has been spent on rural sewerage and sewage disposal work, over £12 million being Government grants.

Mr. C. Hughes: Why has the hon. Gentleman not been able to obtain the figures for which my hon. Friend asked? Is not it possible to get them from water authorities and undertakings? Is it not the case that in many areas in Wales and in the north of England the percentages are very high? Will his hon. Friend institute a drive to see that these people get this important amenity?

Mr. Corfield: Of course we could obtain these figures by circularising all the rural authorities and asking for them. But, as I attempted to indicate to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton), it is doubtful whether the figures would reveal anything. I am sure that the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) knows many parts of his own constituency where it would be wholly out of place to try to provide these facilities.

Mains Water Supplies, Rural Areas

Mr. Hilton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will state the percentage of the rural population whose homes are not connected with mains water supplies, and the number of farms which are not connected with mains water supplies.

Mr. Corfield: It is estimated that about 10 per cent. of the rural population of England and Wales are without a mains water supply. Corresponding information about farms is not at present available.

Mr. Hilton: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that a figure of 10 per cent. is far too high? I agree that some local authorities have done pretty well, but is it not the case that others run up against difficulty because of the high interest rate which they have to pay on loans? Would not the hon. Gentleman, in consultation with his right hon.


Friend, consider making loans at a low interest rate to local authorities who are prepared to get on with the job?

Mr. Corfield: There are, I think, powers under which help could be given, but I should like further notice of that question. May I again point out that there are certain areas where a non-mains water supply is perfectly adequate, especially on farms. There is a survey on farms being conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the result will be available.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Housing Act, 1961 (Part II)

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what reports he has received from local authorities regarding the operation of Part II of the Housing Act, 1961, concerning houses in multiple occupation.

Sir K. Joseph: None, Sir. It is too soon to expect useful reports on the working of provisions which have been in operation only a few months.

Mr. Pannell: While adding my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his appointment, may I ask whether he is aware that certain local authorities are experiencing great difficulties in obtaining information regarding these houses in multi-occupation because of the non-co-operation of the occupants, and that other local authorities are reluctant to implement this part of the Act because it means that they have to rehouse those who are displaced to the detriment of those on the waiting list for houses? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that this grave problem, which has been aggravated by the great influx of immigrants in recent months, is dealt with with the greatest urgency?

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend is really raising two questions. The first is about reporting to my Department. It is open to any local authority to write to me on any of its experiences under this part of the Act without waiting for the request I shall make generally in two years' time. As regards the second, while recognising the difficulties of some local authorities, I would point out that

the purpose of the Act is to enable them to stop matters getting worse even in those cases where they cannot make them get better.

Liverpool

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs on what date he intends to send officials from his department to confer with the officials of the Liverpool Housing Department regarding the speeding up of house building to meet the needs of Liverpool.

Sir K. Joseph: Discussions between officials have already taken place and others will follow to the extent necessary from time to time.

Mrs. Braddock: As this Question was tabled to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make it his business to pay a visit immediately to Liverpool to acquaint himself with the grave difficulties there and thus put himself in a position to give instruction about the work that ought to be done?

Sir K. Joseph: I should like to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to my predecessor both for what he has done and for what he has set in hand. He has left me a considerable tour of other slum areas to carry out, and I must carry on with that. My Permanent Secretary was in Liverpool yesterday, and I am aware of what is going on in that city.

Mr. MacColl: The right hon. Gentleman had better be careful. His predecessor went to Merseyside and undertook to do something about the slums, and lost his job. If the right hon. Gentleman proposes to make tours, is not he in imminent danger of suffering the same fate?

Slum Clearance

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will make a statement on his recent visit to Oldham and other Lancashire towns with major housing problems; and what steps he has in view to implement his expressed desire for a more determined attack on the problem of slum clearance and of overcrowding.

Sir K. Joseph: Oldham has a very large and urgent slum clearance problem. The council intends to increase substantially its rate of house building for this purpose provided the additional labour required can be obtained. During my predecessor's recent visit he suggested possible ways of attracting outside firms to the area, and these are to be pursued further in conjunction with my Department. I will also offer technical assistance to speed up the preparation of housing lay-outs and designs.

Mr. Hale: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he bear in mind that this problem remains very much the same as it was 11 years ago, and that the immense burdens that the Corporation has to face under the present method of finance and under the Government's interest charges make it an almost superhuman problem to take sufficiently quickly the urgently required steps? Will he also take into account the question of additional finance for hard-pressed borough and urban councils which have been left with a burden from the years that have gone?

Sir K. Joseph: I accept the urgent need, but we face a situation in which the whole building force of England and Wales is working at full stretch on all sorts of activities, and Oldham faces the need to attract further building labour or, by good management, to get more output from its existing labour. I fully accept the challenge that faces the Government.

Mr. M. Stewart: Does the Minister think that it will be possible to deal with the slum problem generally unless he reverses the tendency of the last seven years and once more raises the output of council houses? Will he do that?

Sir K. Joseph: I hope we shall find that, as has already happened this year, the trend of council house building is increasing.

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will give the number of local authorities who have submitted plains for slum clearance for the years 1962, 1963 and 1964, the number of houses for which they have

applied for replacement, and the number of such houses for which he has given sanction.

Mr. Corfield: The form in which local authorities normally submit their slum clearance proposals and house building programmes does not enable me to give the hon. Member the information asked for.

Mr. Wainwright: Is it not the policy of the Ministry to restrict local authorities in the number of houses they want to build to replace slums? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a local authority in my division made an application in respect of slum clearance, but the Ministry turned the application down? Because of the persistence of the local authority we hope that the Ministry will now change its mind. Will the hon. Gentleman on all occasions take note of what local authorities want to do to clear slum houses?

Mr. Corfield: Yes, indeed, and if the hon. Gentleman will give me further details of that case I will certainly look into it.

Mr. Frank Allaun: What is the hon. Gentleman's attitude towards the recent Report by the Civic Trust, which recommends that slum clearance be raised from the present 60,000 houses a year to 180,000 houses a year?

Mr. Corfield: As the hon. Gentleman knows, at the moment the allocation of the purposes for which houses are built is left very largely with local authorities. I take the view that that is the right place for the responsibility to reside.

Homeless People, London

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what special action, if necessary by legislation, he will now take to deal with the further increase in the number of homeless persons in London.

Sir K. Joseph: Before deciding what action may be necessary, I shall study the report of the London County Council's committee of inquiry and hear the views of the council. I have already agreed to meet representatives of the council for this purpose.

Mr. Lipton: As the previous Minister failed to tackle the scandal of the growing number of homeless in the London area, will the new Minister give an assurance that he will not merely follow the ineffective policies of his predecessor but will take drastic action to deal with a shameful state of affairs?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not accept the charges of the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend was ineffective. The House must realise that there are in London fewer residents and more houses, but because of the high number of households as opposed to people, there is still great competition for dwellings. It is a fact that there should be dwellings for the poorest, since there are about 300,000 subsidised dwellings in the L.C.C. boundaries, but rigidity—a rigidity which is sometimes associated with humanity—tends to freeze tenancies. This is a very big problem.

Mr. M. Stewart: Does the Minister remember that his predecessor took the view that this was something to be solved entirely by action by the London County Council, but that the recent report has made it quite clear that that is not so? Does he realise, therefore, that he must look at this problem with a fresh mind?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that my right hon. Friend took that simple view of what is a very complex problem. Of course, it is not caused by any one factor; a number of factors are involved, and I shall continue the active study initiated by my right hon. Friend and helped by the report the London County Council has had prepared.

Mr. Stewart: Will the Minister refresh his mind on this? Does not he recall that his right hon. Friend said specifically that all the problems arising out of this situation could be dealt with by L.C.C. action? Will he now agree that that is not so?

Sir K. Joseph: I doubt whether my right hon. Friend said anything as simple as that. The L.C.C. has a great part to play in this, but the factors are wider than those under L.C.C. control alone. That I accept.

Local Authority Houses (Average Area)

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and

Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will give the area in square feet of the houses built by, or on behalf of, local authorities for the years 1947, 1948, 1949, 1959, 1960 and 1961.

Mr. Corfield: The average area of three-bedroom council houses in tenders approved in each of the years referred to was as follows:







square feet


1947
…
…
…
…
1,043


1948
…
…
…
…
1,053


1949
…
…
…
…
1,055


1959
…
…
…
…
897


1960
…
…
…
…
897


1961
…
…
…
…
898


These figures include the area of any outbuildings.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that his right hon. Friend's predecessor made a statement to a builders' conference in London on 5th April, 1962, to the effect that many new houses are too small, ill-equipped, dull to look at, or just plain ugly? Does not he think that this policy is killing the imagination of designers and architects, who want to build good houses but cannot do so because of the smaller area in which they have to work?

Mr. Corfield: It is a question of balance. Where we have the situation of a fully stretched building industry there is to some extent the necessity to choose between numbers and size. I have no doubt that the right choice has been taken.

Mr. Wainwright: But does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that houses are built to remain for 60 years, and we do not want to have slum houses with us in another 60 years' time? Will he do something about it?

Mr. Corfield: I do not think that there has been a reduction of quality to the extent to which the hon. Gentleman refers. All these sizes have been agreed, and are in part the result of improvements in architectural design.

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Gentleman said that we must choose between numbers and size. Is not he aware that the complaint is that we are getting neither numbers nor size, and that the number of council house completions is lower than 15 yearns ago?

Mr. Corfield: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that when the


rather larger area was in force, under a Government of his own party, the numbers were substantially fewer.

Local Authority Houses (Average Tender Price)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister of Welsh Affairs what are the provisional figures for April and May of this year for the average tender price per square foot for local authority houses.

Mr. Corfield: The average price pea-square foot of three-bedroom houses in tenders approved during April and May was 41s. 7d. and 41s. 8d. respectively.

Mr. Boyden: Does not this mean that the average tender price for council houses of 900 square feet has gone up by £300 in the last 18 months? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor, when he answered a similar Question on 12th July, agreed that faster completion was not the only answer to the problem of getting the price down? Will the hon. Gentleman carry on with the story and tell me what other steps the Government intend to take to get the price down?

Mr. Corfield: I will take the arithmetic of the hon. Gentleman for granted because such a calculation is beyond me at the moment. I think that the most promising line of advance is towards more standardisation and greater productivity in the building industry. This is a matter to which my right hon. Friend is turning his attention and we shall do our best to provide some improvement.

Sir C. Osborne: How much of the increased cost is due to wages?

Mr. Corfield: That is actually another question, but, for the information of my hon. Friend, the London rate for craftsmen rose from 4s. 10½d. in February, 1959, to 5s. 10½d. in February of this year.

Mr. M. Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that when he puts his last Answer side by side with the Answer to an earlier Question, it will reveal that the effect of Government policy on council houses has been that we have fewer of them; each one contains fewer square feet, and each square foot costs more?

Mr. Corfield: Of course, when building costs go up, the square footage costs rise. Despite the lower total area, the size of rooms has been maintained throughout.

Owner-Occupation

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what new steps he will take to assist people desiring to become owner-occupiers of their homes.

Sir K. Joseph: I have no proposals to put forward at present.

Mr. Stewart: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to make proposals? Is he aware that the rising prices of houses is progressivaly making it more and more difficult for people who wish to become owner-occupiers, and that some sort of policy is needed?

Sir K. Joseph: I think that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said that my predecessor had turned his attention to the question of productivity in the building industry. I think this is a sphere to which we could look, together with standardisation, to secure lower costs.

Mr. MacDermot: Will the Minister undertake to look into the question of leasehold enfranchisement at an early date? Is he aware that this aspect of owner-occupation has become increasingly urgent as the leases fall in?

Sir K. Joseph: I am sure that in my capacity as Minister for Welsh Affairs I cannot possibly avoid this very important and urgent matter.

Building Programme

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the 400,100 marriages in Great Britain last year, what is his estimate of tine total number of homes which will be built in England and Wales during the next two years.

Sir K. Joseph: What matters for housing purposes is not the number of marriages, tout the net increase in the number of households. This is about 100,000 a year. The current rate of building is nearly three times that.

Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister go to see the film, "A Kind of Loving"—

Mr. Lipton: The Prime Minister has seen it

Mr. Allaun: —in order to appreciate bow many marriages are ruined because young couples today cannot find homes of their own? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures he has given do not cover the net increase in households, plus the requirements needed to deal with slum clearance and overcrowding? Is he aware that the best solution to the problems confronting council house tenants and owner-occupiers would be low interest rates for housing loans?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not accept the panacea offered by the hon. Gentleman, but I share his passionate concern about the need to try to find some way to increase the rate of house building, bearing in mind the fact of the already fully stretched resources of the building industry.

Mrs. Castle: Will the Minister look into the policy of the French Government in this respect and note what an important part very low interest rates for housing play in the much bigger programme in which the French are engaged?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to draw attention to the lessons which we can learn from abroad. On my arrival at the Ministry I was presented with all the studies which have been made at the request of my predecessor so that I may be able to consider them.

Improvement Schemes

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will encourage local authorities to extend the new proposals for improving houses without baths, hot water or inside toilets, by loans to landlords or by compulsory acquisition of certain houses not part of a scheme for a whole area.

Sir K. Joseph: The use of the powers available to local authorities for both these purposes will be dealt with in a circular which I am sending to them.

Mr. Allaun: I understand that this circular goes a little way towards meeting the proposals of the Public Health Inspectors Association for area improvement schemes, but why not apply the same limited form of compulsion to individual houses which badly need improvement grants? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that persuasion has failed, since only 23,000 private landlords used the grants last year?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not accept that persuasion has failed here. It is a problem where we meet reluctant tenants as well as reluctant landlords. I hope that the circular will be a help.

Low-Rented Accommodation, London

Mr. Parkin: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what new steps he intends to take to assist the provision of low-rented accomodation for large families in the London area.

Sir K. Joseph: Housing authorities already have the necessary powers and resources to provide acommodation for large families at low rents, whether by building new dwellings or by the purchase of existing ones.

Mr. Parkin: Will the Minister treat this very important problem in a category by itself? Will he initiate some inquiries to find out how far, as I believe to be the case, the chances of rehousing large families are in fact diminishing rather than increasing, how far local authorities have varied in their enthusiasm for using the powers they have, and what new powers may be desirable?

Sir K. Joseph: I am reluctant to promise new inquiries because they might simply overload staff who are already busy trying to tackle the problem. Within that limitation, I will certainly do what the hon. Gentleman requires. I believe that the absolute numbers of large families are relatively small, but I am not denying the misery for those concerned.

Mr. Parkin: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will initiate a survey to provide a fresh estimate of the number of people required


in essential services in London for whom low-rented dwellings in the central area are a necessity; and what steps he is taking to influence planning developments so that unskilled industries in the London area are replaced by a wide range of small units employing skilled craftsmen.

Sir K.. Joseph: I am not aware that an estimate of this sort exists nor do I think it would be profitable to attempt to make one. The decentralisation of all forms of industry is a major objective of the planning policy for London.

Mr. Parkin: Did the right hon. Gentleman notice that the figure announced yesterday for the earnings of the mythical average manual worker far exceed the wages brought home by many of the people engaged on the essential services of London? Does he agree that we need either a new wages policy or a new housing policy if we are to accommodate these people where they are required? Will he get the confirmation or his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour through the local youth employment officers that there is a grave shortage of opportunities of skilled employment in London for the product of the new education system?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not accept that there is an inadequacy of opportunities for skilled labour in London. There are many factors here. I ask the hon. Member to bear in mind one of them, namely, that in many households more than one wage comes in.

Mr. Grimond: As the Minister has spoken of the Government's intention to decentralise London, may I ask him if the Government have any plans for moving any Government offices out of London?

Sir K. Joseph: The Government have in fact set quite a good example in moving out of London.

Mr. M. Stewart: Have they not also set an example by moving into London, for example at Earls Court and at State House?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, but a large number of Government Departments have moved their offices out of London.

Houses (Conversion)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if, with a view to the introduction of the necessary legislation, he will discuss with local authorities the adequacy of their powers to engage staff with a view to examining" houses to ascertain whether they have been converted into flats.

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. I am satisfied that if a local authority needs to engage stall for such work for the purpose of any of its functions it already has adequate powers to do so under Sections 105, 106 or 107 of the Local Government Act, 1933.

Mr. Callaghan: Is there much evidence outside the area in which this dispute has arisen about the lack of knowledge of local authorities of the conversion of houses into flats and thereby the consequential loss of revenue?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not think so, but I am a little intimidated in this question about giving a verbal answer because there are a number of legal obscurities involved. I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Popplewell: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a general shortage of qualified staff for this purpose? Will he give the matter very serious attention with a view to increasing the staffs of local authorities to help them to assist in this vary valuable work?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes.

ROYAL COMMISSIONS

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for recommending the setting up of new Royal Commissions between now and the end of this year; and what subjects will be covered.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I shall announce to the House any proposal to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission in the usual way and at the appropriate time.

Mr. Wyatt: Is the Prime Minister aware that he has been setting up these Commissions and Committees at the rate of over one a month over the last year to decide upon things which are properly in the Government's sphere to decide upon? Will he give an assurance that he is going to drop this practice in future, unless he has decided to govern entirely by Royal Commission and dispense with Cabinet Government, which might be a convenience to him at the moment?

The Prime Minister: I would rather not speculate about any future advice which I might tender to Her Majesty on the matter of Royal Commissions, but I should like once more to pay my tribute to those who have been good enough to give their service upon them.

HOUSE MORTGAGES (MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at Leicester on 7th July last about house mortgages represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Lipton: Does the Prime Minister know that his right hon. Friend's admission that the Government had no definite plans to make house purchase easier was greeted with bleak dismay by the general public and that it helped to put the Conservative candidate in the by-election at Leicester, North-East at the bottom of the poll? In these circumstances, why did he not sack the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as well? It might have made all the difference.

The Prime Minister: This is a Question about the rate of long-term interest. Short-term rates have dropped and I hope that it is not unreasonable to expect that in due course the long-term interest rate may drop also.

UNITED NATIONS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Milne: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs about the United Nations on Friday, 13th July, at the annual meeting of the

General Council of the United Nations Association, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Prentice: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the General Council of the United Nations Association about the United Nations on 13th July represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech on 13th July by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the United Nations Association about the United Nations represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The speech was a forceful exposition of our support for the United Nations and a statement of our disquiet at some of the tendencies which we discern in the Organisation.

Mr. Milne: Does the Prime Minister realise that this speech represented a marked improvement on the one made at Berwick-on-Tweed on 28th December? Will he note that in the course of making this speech the Foreign Secretary said, comparing the United Nations with the League of Nations of pre-war days, that he did not want to see another great idea destroyed by short-sighted attitudes? Will he bear this in mind?

The Prime Minister: I will pass to my noble Friend the tribute which the hon. Gentleman has paid him.

Mr. Prentice: Although the speech contained some formal declaration of support for the United Nations, does not the Prime Minister think that the part which was bound to be repeated throughout the world was the sanctimonious lecture to the newer countries on their double standards? Cannot he persuade the Foreign Secretary to drop this attitude? Does he think that this kind of talk about double standards is convincing from a Government who supported the Suez operation?

The Prime Minister: I think that it is very important, if the United Nations is to do its task successfully, that it should try to keep within its own rules.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the Foreign Secretary's persistent attacks on the great


majority of the nations of the world represented in the General Assembly because they demand an end to colonialism shows how completely out of touch with the modern world he is, and that the Prime Minister's attempts to give the Government a more attractive preelection image by a surgical operation will fail so long as he keeps this nuclear Neanderthal at the Foreign Office?

The Prime Minister: The best thing I can do is try to put the hon. Member in touch with his hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne).

Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority of the nation thoroughly welcomed the plain speaking and frank expression of honest criticism of the United Nations and would wholly deplore it if this country were automatically to support actions of the United Nations in places like the Congo which are aimed at suppressing freedom?

The Prime Minister: I thought that the Foreign Secretary gave a good and balanced account of the whole situation.

Mr. Gaitskell: Does the Prime Minister agree with the extraordinary statement made by his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) that the United Nations intervention in the Congo was in the terms which the hon. Member described? Would he not make it plain that Her Majesty's Government support the United Nations' attempts in the Congo to maintain peace and to secure a proper settlement?

The Prime Minister: We are very anxious Chat this matter should be settled within the terms of the resolution by peaceful negotiations and not by warlike action.

Mr. Shinwell: While declaring personally that the United Nations should not regard itself as immune from criticism, may I ask whether the real complaint against the Foreign Secretary is not that if he feels disquiet about the activities of the United Nations, the best place in which to express that disquiet is at the General Assembly?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. He has done that and I have tried to do it.

FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE (QUESTIONS)

Mr. Jay: asked the Prime Minister what opportunity will be available to hon. Members to address questions to the First Secretary of State.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the right horn. Gentleman to the Order of Questions circulated with the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons, Number 146.

Mr. Jay: Will the Prime Minister make it clear on which of the subjects for which he is responsible the First Secretary is willing to answer Questions? Will he bear in mind that though the First Secretary's answers seldom mean anything at all, we should be very sorry not to hear them?

The Prime Minister: I know that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best, but my right hon. Friend knows quite a lot.

Mr. Gaitskell: In that case could not the Prime Minister tell us in which sphere of knowledge he will specialise?

The Prime Minister: There is another Question on the Order Paper about that matter.

NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish the conclusions emerging from the latest discussions between United States nuclear scientists and the British scientists led by Sir Solly Zuckerman and Sir William Penney as to the feasibility of discovering and identifying, not only all nuclear test explosions in the atmosphere and undersea, but also minor underground explosions, from monitoring systems situated outside the territories of the nuclear powers.

The Prime Minister: I made a full statement on these discussions on Tuesday in reply to Questions by the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson). I have nothing to add at this stage.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is it not a fact that leading American and British scientists in this field have indicated that methods already exist for the detecting and identifying of tests through monitoring systems situated outside the territories of the nuclear Powers, and would it not be desirable to publish the conclusions reached by this conference of scientists? Is not the public entitled to know just where we stand in this matter?

The Prime Minister: I have placed in the Library the statement made by the Department of Defence. This shows that further progress has been made in work on which the scientists have been engaged for a long time. I hope that this may facilitate all that we hope for, which is a final and comprehensive treaty.

Mrs. Castle: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he has yet sent more than a mere acknowledgement to the letter which he has received from Professor Don Leet offering to co-operate with British scientists in his method of detecting underground tests?

The Prime Minister: All this information is available to both the British and American scientists.

HOUSING, SCOTLAND

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the need for expediting the progress of housing in Scotland, if he will appoint a Minister who will have no other duties but planning a housing drive for Scotland.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware of the tremendous problem of housing which still faces Scotland? The City of Glasgow at present cannot hope to solve its housing problem for 20 years and even in enlightened counties like Ayrshire newly married couples have still to be on the waiting list seven years. Does he not think that a new drive should be organised?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but this is a question about whether a special Minister should be appointed, and I do not think that that is the right method.

MINISTER OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister to what extent the new Minister of Public Building and Works will have responsibility in Scotland.

The Prime Minister: To the same extent as in England and Wales.

Mr. Hughes: Does this mean that new housing powers will be given to the new Minister? What is the meaning of his assurance that this would mean some kind of new housing drive in England? Does that apply to Scotland?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I hope that all the efforts of the Ministry of Works which are now available to the Secretary of State for Scotland will be directed to assist him.

FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE AND MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

Mr. Grimond: asked the Prime Minister what are the duties of the First Secretary of State and of the Minister without Portfolio.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State will act as Deputy Prime Minister and will retain responsibility for the Central African Office and continue to lead the Ministerial group charged with the oversight of the Common Market negotiations.
My right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio will be responsible for the co-ordination of the Government information services at home and has the responsibility normally carried by a member of the Cabinet who has no Departmental duties.

Mr. Grimond: What exactly are the functions to be attached to the office of Deputy Prime Minister? Like the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), I attach great importance to hearing the replies of the First Secretary. Will he answer questions addressed to him as Deputy Prime Minister? As for the Minister without Portfolio, is it


simply his job to conduct Government propaganda at home and, if so, is this a suitable charge on public funds?

The Prime Minister: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, my right hon. Friend will answer Questions addressed to me in my absence. He will also deal with the special questions to which I have referred, particularly those of Central Africa. In reply to the second part of the question, successive Administrations have found it necessary to co-ordinate the Government information services, and this will be done on the home front by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Lipton: Does not the Prime Minister realise that the official appointment for the first time in British consti tutional history of a Deputy Prime Minister represents a damaging admission on the Prime Minister's part of his own inadequacies?

The Prime Minister: This is not an appointment submitted to the Sovereign but is a statement of the organisation of Government. It follows a very high precedent, for it was exactly the arrangement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) when Sir Anthony Eden was appointed Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr. P. Williams: Will the Prime Minister answer about the rôle of the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to his task as Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Common Market negotiations? Does that mean that he will now be answering on Common Market affairs rather than the Lord Privy Seal?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think that it would be more convenient for the Lord Privy Seal to continue, but this is a statement of the very important task which my right hon. Friend the First Secretary has undertaken for some time past.

Mr. Marsh: Can the Prime Minister hold out any hopes to the House and the country of the possible promotion of the Deputy Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: If I were not so anxious not to offend the Leader of the Liberal Party, I might say, "Wait and See."

TRADE AND COMMERCE West Fife

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many jobs are likely to be provided in West Fife in the current year as a result of the Local Employment Act; and how many jobs will be lost in the same period.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): It is estimated that over 550 jobs have arisen or will arise in 1962 in the Dunfermline group of employment exchange areas from new building and other developments approved or assisted by the Board of Trade. I understand that about 250 jobs have been or will be lost in this group of areas during the year as the result of closures and redundancies.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that in one village alone, the village of Kelty, there will be lost in the next two or three years two pits which employ between them about 1,700 men and that there are no immediate prospects of one single job to replace those 1,700? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what further steps the Government have in mind to redress the balance?

Mr. Erroll: I am aware of the seriousness of the situation which the hon. Member has mentioned. In reply to what further steps are to be taken, I ask him to await the debate on Scottish industry and employment which is to take place today.

Cotton Garments (Merchandise Marks)

Mrs. Castle: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to amend the Merchandise Marks Act so as to ensure that all cotton garments sold in Great Britain are marked with the country of origin of both the garment and the cloth.

Mr. Erroll: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion for consideration in the light of the recommendations of the Molony Committee.

Mrs. Castle: Has not waiting for Molony become a Ministerial disease? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that


this kind of action, taken now, is urgently needed to help to restore confidence in Lancashire? Is he aware that merchants are making large fortunes by importing grey cloth which, when processed, does not have to carry the mark of origin and certainly does not have to carry it when made up into a garment, so that the British consumer who wants to buy British textiles is not able to identify them? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman take action immediately?

Mr. Erroll: Because it seems sensible, having appointed a Committee to go into the matter, that we should await a" study of its recommendations.

Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that this Government will still be in office when the Molony Committee reports?

Mr. Erroll: Yes, Sir. I have every hope of that.

Sir C. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that much of this grey cloth, of which hon. Members from Lancashire complained, is produced by the work of Commonwealth citizens?— [Interruption.]— How can hon. Members opposite want to prevent them from earning a living when they want them to be allowed into this country as immigrants in unlimited numbers?

Mr. Speaker: I think there was a question underlying that noise. I do not know whether the Minister desires to answer it.

Mr. Erroll: I have made a note of the question which was put.

MISS CARMEN BRYAN (DEPORTATION ORDER)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. FLETCHER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he has considered the case of Miss Carmen Bryan, a Jamaican girl of 22 years of age living in this country since 1960, who, having pleaded guilty to a first offence of petty larceny involving goods valued at £ 2, was conditionally discharged, recommended for deportation by the Paddington Magistrates' Court on 12th June, and has since been

detained in Holloway Prison; and whether, in view of the assurances that the power of deportation under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, was not intended to apply to cases of petty larceny, he will refuse to implement the magistrate's recommendation for deportation.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): With permission, I will now answer Question No. 65.
I cannot trace any assurances given in the terms suggested by the hon. Member. Most careful consideration has been given to the circumstances of this case, but no sufficient grounds have been found for deciding not to act on the recommendation which the court thought it right to make. A deportation order has accordingly been signed.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the Home Secretary aware that when we debated the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill most specific assurances were given that deportation orders would not be made in the case of Commonwealth immigrants for relatively trivial offences and the powers sought were for only serious offences? Does he realise that this girl was conditionally discharged, she has been in Holloway ever since and has had no access to any legal advice for over a month and no communication with the Jamaican High Commissioner? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Is it the intention of the Government to treat Commonwealth immigrants, as regards deportation, worse than aliens and to use their powers in respect of trivial offences of this kind— on a first offence?

Mr. Brooke: I should like to assure the House that I intend to take very seriously my duties when I receive recommendations for the deportation of Commonwealth immigrants. As to this case, no Home Secretary could treat shoplifting as a trivial offence— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]— considering how prevalent it is at present in London. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] I am not sure whether the hon. Member is aware that Miss Bryan has addressed a petition to the Home Secretary in which she says that she does not want to stay in this country, that she wants to go home as soon as possible, and that she has no objection to being deported.

Mr. Fletcher: I am aware of that petition. Is the Home Secretary aware that it was addressed because this young lady was told that it would be impossible for her to appeal and that if she appealed she might be sentenced to imprisonment and then deported, and she obviously preferred to go back to Jamaica than to face the prospect of spending the rest of her life in Holloway Gaol?

Mr. Brooke: It is for her to decide whether or not to appeal. I certainly regret the time she has remained in prison. The reason for that was that this was one of the first cases, if not the very first case, of a recommendation for deportation under the now Act. It bad to receive specially careful consideration an that account. Miss Bryan has been out of work for a number of months. She is anxious to go as soon as possible. I think it would be a great act of injustice if I ware to stand in the way of her returning to Jamaica [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. G. Brown: Is the Minister aware that what he has just said is an affront to the feelings of hon. Members in all parts of the House and will be felt very severely outside? As one of his first jobs in his new Ministry, will he not say that he will look into this again? Is he not aware of the words his predecessor used in the course of the passage of the Bill, which certainly made it quite unbelievable that this kind of case would be regarded as suitable for deportation? Is he not aware that this young lady has been kept, as he says she has, incommunicado for quite a time and has been able to have no consultation with advisers? Does he not feel that this is a shocking business? Will he not offer to the House an undertaking to look at it again?

Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. I am not prepared to look at this case again. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] I do not understand the allegations that she has been kept incommunicado. She has, in fact, addressed this petition in which she says that she has no objection to being deported. Her one complaint was that she was being retained in this country for so long—

Mr. Manuel: In prison.

Mr. Brooke: Arrangements have been made accordingly for her to leave this country on Saturday.

Mr. G. Brown: If she wants to go, why does she have to be deported? Why should she not be just released?

Mr. Brooke: She has said that she has no objection to being deported.

Mr. Grimond: If the Home Secretary were put in gaol in a foreign country in similar circumstances—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: A good thing if he were.

Mr. Grimond: —would he not apply to leave the country? Does he accept the facts as stated? Does he also accept that a specific undertaking was given to the House that deportation would not be used for cases of this sort? If he accepts both those things, how does he reconcile his action with them?

Mr. Brooke: I cannot accept that shoplifting is a trivial offence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] Once a Home Secretary were to do that it would encourage and not discourage it. I am very sorry indeed that this young Jamaican woman has been detained in prison. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. No benefit is derived by anyone from shouting in this way. Let there be order.

Mrs. Braddock: Will the Home Secretary tell us what "conditional discharge" means? In view of the fact that the case was tried by the magistrates and a conditional charge was given, will he explain exactly what it means? If he does not, I can do so.

Mr. Brooke: The magistrates also recommended her for deportation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Answer the question."] It was in accordance with that recommendation that she was detained in prison.

Mrs. Braddock: Do I take it that the Minister does not know what a conditional discharge is? Will he tell the House what a conditional discharge means?

Mr. Brooke: This young woman pleaded guilty. She was conditionally discharged and recommended for deportation.

Mr. G. Brown: Does the Home Secretary think that what he is doing is in keeping with the words used by his predecessor? I quote them from HANSARD of 7th February.
The Clause makes it clear that the power can be operated only on the recommendation of a court following conviction of an offence which is punishable by imprisonment."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 515.]
This girl got a conditional discharge. Does not the present Home Secretary think that he is stretching those words beyond all reasonable meaning?.

Mr. Brooke: No, I do not. I have gone into this very carefully indeed, and I have given the House the assurance that in every such case I shall personally investigate the circumstances— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]— but I have no doubt in this case that the decision was right and that it was in this young woman's own interest.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Dugdale, a Private Notice Question.

Mr. Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall seek your leave at the appropriate moment to move the Adjournment of the House on this subject.

Mr. Speaker: This is not the appropriate moment.

Later—

Mr. Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, I seek your permission to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the decision of the Home Secretary to deport Miss Carmen Bryan, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, on Saturday next.
I submit, with respect, that there can be no doubt that this Motion qualifies under the Standing Order as being definite, urgent, and a matter of public importance. It is quite obviously definite, in that it refers to a specific order for the deportation of a named individual. It is urgent, because it relates to an order for deportation on Saturday next, which is two days from now. It is quite clearly a matter of public importance, because it involves not only the liberty of the subject but, in my submission, the

integrity and good faith of the Government.
Carmen Bryan is a young lady from Jamaica, who has been leading a respectable life in this country for two years. On 2nd June, the day after Part II of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act came into operation, she pleaded guilty to an offence of shoplifting, involving a sum of 40s. She was conditionally discharged and sent to Holloway Jail, where she still is, with a recommendation for deportation. She was not allowed bail, as the Home Secretary had the power to do—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows all these things so well that he will know that I have no right to allow him to make now the speech which he would make if he got leave to move. Perhaps he will let me have his Motion.
The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The decision of the Home Secretary to deport Miss Carmen Bryan, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, on Saturday next.
I am precluded by previous Rulings from accepting such a Motion today, which is the day on which the Guillotine of Supply falls.

Mr. G. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This clearly puts the House in a very considerable difficulty. The lady is about to be deported. It is a matter on which there is strong feeling here, and there will be outside. Would you permit me, Sir, to ask the Leader of the House, who has heard the exchanges, whether he will take some immediate steps with his colleague to arrange that this young lady is not deported until the House has a chance to discuss her case? She should not just go because our rules happen to prevent us from discussing the case this day. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that?

Mr. Speaker: I will allow the Leader of the House to answer, but I will ask the assistance of the House about this. We cannot have any regular debate now on the matter. It would put me in an impossible position.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you will sense that it is the desire of the


whole House that we should have an opportunity to discuss this case before Saturday. As you are precluded by the rules to which you refer from what I thought, if I may say so with respect, was your intention otherwise to accept the Motion today, can we take it that you will grant it between now and Saturday?

Mr. Speaker: No, and I should not like the right hon. Gentleman to make any such presumption, because I do not think that it is in my power to accept this Motion on its merits, if I could consider it on merits.

Mr. Macleod: Accepting that, as you say, Mr. Speaker, you are precluded by previous Rulings in this matter, I should like to consider what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said, and, no doubt, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider it.

PERU (BRITISH SUBJECTS)

Mr. Dugdale: (by Private Notice)asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the safety of British subjects in Peru following the coup d'etat there.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): Her Majesty's Ambassador at Lima has associated himself with a move by representatives of foreign Governments there to request the Military Government to issue a statement that they will protect the lives and property of all foreigners in Peru. No report has been received of any loss or injury having been suffered by any British subject in Peru as a result of the military coup.

Mr. Dugdale: Does that mean that British subjects are being protected? May I ask whether Her Majesty's Government associate themselves with the concern expressed by the United States of America at this grave blow at such democracy as there has been in Peru by military forces determined to prevent the election of a President who might possibly do something to help the position of the peasants?

Mr. Thomas: I do not think I can comment on that until the situation in Peru becomes much clearer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 23RD JULY— Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
There will be a debate on Disarmament, until Seven o'clock, and afterwards on Coal Mine Closures, Redundancy and Unemployment in the North East.
Motion on the Greenwich Hospital the Travers' Foundation Accounts.
TUESDAY, 24TH JULY— Progress on the remaining stages of the Pipe-lines Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Exchequer Advances (Limit) Order, 1962.
WEDNESDAY, 25TH JULY— Conclusion of the stages of the Pipe-lines Bill [Lords], and of the Road Traffic Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations, the Gas Boards and Electricity Boards (Rateable Values) Orders, and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (South Africa) Order.
THURSDAY, 26TH JULY— Debate on the censure Motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
We propose to facilitate consideration of the Lords Amendments to the following Private Members' Bills:
Lotteries and Gaming Bill, and the Local Government (Records) Bill.
FRIDAY, 27TH JULY— Debate on a Government Motion to take note of the Report of the Iron and Steel Board for 1961.
MONDAY, 30TH JULY— The proposed business will be:
Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
There will be debates on Southern Rhodesia, and on the case of the


former Chairman of the Birmingham (Mental B) Hospital Management Committee, which it is thought may last for half a day, and be followed by subjects which hon. Members may wish to raise.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Leader of the House confirm that there will be a debate on the Pilkington Report and the Government's White Paper before the Recess, and can he tell us what form the debate will take? Will it be on a Motion, and, if so, what Motion? Will he also tell us when the next progress report on the Common Market negotiations will be made, and whether in this case also we can now be assured that there will be a debate before the Recess?

Mr. Macleod: Concerning the Pilkington Report, a debate will take place. It will be in the last week before the Recess, either on the Tuesday or the Wednesday. We would propose a Motion simply to take note of the Government's Memorandum. As to the position on the Common Market, perhaps I may give the House this information. The Lord Privy Seal will be in Brussels from the 19th, that is today, until 21st July, and also from 23rd July until about the 30th. My right hon. Friend would like to make a progress report to the House firmly on Monday, 23rd, that is next Monday, and, of course, another one after the next round, and that progress report will probably be on Monday, 30th July. As to the debate, there would be a possible day in the last week before the Recess, but perhaps we might have discussions on that after the first progress report.

Sir B. Janner: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the very serious statement contained in HANSARD in relation to the crime of genocide and our refusal to accede to the Convention, which we support so heartily, there will be an opportunity of discussing that matter and considering the reasons that have been given, which to many of us are very unsatisfactory? Secondly, in view of the statement on the probation service and the considerable amount of dismay it has caused regarding the rate of increase suggested in their wages— a despicable amount— will he give an opportunity to the House to consider this matter before the Recess?

Mr. Macleod: On the first matter, as the hon. Gentleman well knows because he raised it, my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal dealt with this yesterday and explained the reasons for the position that the Government take in this matter. There is no argument conceivable, of course, as to the objects of this. The question is simply whether it is possible for us to take the action which the hon. Gentleman suggests.
As to time to discuss the probation officers, and, indeed, other matters, there will be opportunities on Monday, 23rd July, and again on Monday, 30th July, when the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill is the business of the House. I would ask hon. Members, if they intend to raise such matters, whether they would be good enough to give notice to the Ministers concerned.

Miss Bacon: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Joint Undersecretary of State for the Home Department stated on Monday night that an Order was to be laid relating to probation officers' salaries and that the Government were going to compel them to accept a 2½ per cent. increase? May I take it that that Order will not now be laid before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Macleod: I am aware of the position concerning the Order, but it is certainly true that on the two occasions to which I have referred there could be an opportunity, if the hon. Lady so wished, to raise this matter.

Dame Irene Ward: Can my right hon. Friend say when the new Superannuation Regulations will be taken, and whether my Motion on Danger to Children's Lives—

That, in the opinion of this House, the failure of the Minister of Transport to support by any practical means the efforts of the Minister of Education to obtain from the Northumberland County Council a safe access by road provision for 1,600 school children to the new Whitley Bay Grammar School not only runs counter to the undertaking given by the Leader of the House on 7th May to the honourable Member for Tyne-mouth in accepting her Motion on Co-ordination, but in failing to act to give a first priority in road safety to children where the Northumberland


County Council repudiates its legitimate responsibility, accepts a grave personal liability; and this House is further of opinion that if parliamentary Government has to expose school children to unnecessary road hazards the time has come for a re-examination of the relationship between Parliament and local authorities which permits such a happening to exist—

will be taken a week on Monday on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Mr. Macleod: I am not quite clear what my hon. Friend means by "Superannuation Regulations". If she is referring to the statement made by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury a day or two ago, it covers a very wide field. In due course it will involve the House in legislation, and there will be consequential action in many ways.

Dame Irene Ward: May I give my right hon. Friend information about this? I refer to the new Superannuation Regulations which require an affirmative Resolution of the House. It is on the Order Paper.

Mr. Macleod: I am still not clear as to which Regulations. In any case, they do not come into the business for next week. On the second point, it would be in order to raise such matters.

Sir B. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your guidance? Is it in order for me, in view of the remarks which have been made by the Leader of the House, to give notice that I propose, subject to your approval, to raise the two questions to which I have referred on the occasion of our defeating the consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can give notice. How much this governs the matter, I cannot say.

Sir B. Janner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand, and perhaps I may have your guidance, how I am to give notice in view of the statement made by the Leader of the House. Do I give notice to him or to whom?

Mr. Speaker: I will talk to the hon. Member about it afterwards and think

out the best way of assisting him. We must get on.

Mr. Turner: May I ask whether there will be a statement on Greater Malaysia next week and, if not, before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think that there will be a statement next week, but it is possible that there will be one before the House rises for the Summer Recess.

Mr. Diamond: Is the Leader of the House prepared to give time for consideration of a matter which has now become urgent, namely, the final stages of the Redundant Workers (Severance Pay) Bill? He will remember that it is a very short Bill providing monetary compensation to those who lose jobs through no fault of their own. Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a considerable area of unrest, and that those who have the good fortune to be holding down jobs at the moment do not know how soon they may be out of work? Will he be prepared to give very urgent consideration to this matter?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot, I am afraid, promise to facilitate any Bills beyond the two I have included for Thursday, 26th July.

Sir C. Osborne: In view of all the suggestions for debates in the next fortnight, is it to be assumed that the rumoured economic debate will not now take place? Further, can my right hon. Friend say on what day the House will rise?

Mr. Macleod: I have announced the business up to and including Monday, 30th July. There are then probably three days, not counting the day for the Summer Adjournment debates. One of those days is known to the House to be earmarked for a debate on the Pilkington Report, and another for a Welsh Affairs debate. There is, therefore, the possibility of a third day, but, as we know from what the Leader of the Opposition has said on Common Market and other matters, there are a number of claims for that one day.

Sir C. Osborne: When do we rise?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Do the Government propose next week to issue the writs for Dorset, South, Chippenham, and the other constituencies, or are those voters not to be allowed to express their opinion on political events until Christmas?

Mr. Macleod: Anyway, not next week.

Mr. Hamilton: May I ask the Leader of the House whether there will be a free vote next Thursday? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. My voice is not powerful enough to prevail. I ask for less noise.

Mr. Pavitt: Has the Leader of the House noticed that, of the 140 Early Day Motions now on the Order Paper, the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), my own name and the names of hon. Members on both sides, has gained most support? Will he consider having a debate before the House rises on the Early Day Motion which has the most support, namely, the Motion dealing with the review of salaries of those in professions supplementary to medicine?

[That this House is concerned at the grave shortage of qualified audiological technicians, dieticians, occupational therapists, orthoptists, physiotherapists, and remedial gymnasts in the National Health Service and its effects on the

national economy; and calls upon the Minister of Health to appoint an independent committee to review and report upon the present arrangements for recruitment, retention, grading and remuneration of members of these professions in the National Health Service, and to make any recommendations considered necessary.]

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Member will recognise from what I have said that all this competition is really for one day's debating time. Quite clearly, in view of what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the Common Market, I could not respond to the claim the hon. Gentleman has made, but I must again remind him that there are two opportunities when these matters could well be raised.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and that if the first Resolution reported from the Committee of Supply of 18th July shall have been agreed to before half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock by paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply).—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[26TH ALLOTTED DAY]

REPORT [18th July]

IVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1962–63; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1962–63; NAVY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63; ARMY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63; AIR ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63, NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1960–61; ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1960–61; AIR EXPENDITURE, 1960–61

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1962–63

1. That a sum, not exceeding £7,078,200. be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1963. for Expenditure in respect of the services included in the following Civil Estimates, viz.:—

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1962–63

£


Class III, Vote 2B. Scottish Home and Health Department (Revised Estimate)
1,193,100


Class VI, Vote 13B. Scottish Development Department (Revised Estimate) 
1,579,100


Class IV, Vote 1, Board of Trade
4,306,000


Total
£7,078,200

2. That a sum, not exceeding £218,008,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963. for Expenditure in respect of the services included in the following Civil Estimates, viz.:—

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1962–63

£


Class IV, Vote 7, Ministry of Aviation
154,900,000


Class IV, Vote 8, Ministry of Aviation (Purchasing (Repayment) Services) 
19,000,000


Class IV, Vote 9, Civil Aerodromes and Air Navigational Services
5,750,000


Class IV, Vote 3, Board of Trade (Promotion of Local Employment) 
22,259,000


Class IV, Vote 6, Ministry of Labour
16,099,000


Total
£218,008,000

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES. 1962–63

CLASS I

3. That a sum, not exceeding £58,143,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS II

4. That a sum, not exceeding £91,056.000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS III

5. That a sum, not exceeding £88,939,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS IV

6. That a sum, not exceeding £207,142,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963. for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS V

7. That a sum, not exceeding £255.850,000. be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS VI

8. That a sum, not exceeding £1.504,456,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS VII

9. That a sum, not exceeding £104,268,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS VIII

10. That a sum, not exceeding £3,434,997, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year

ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS IX

11. That a sum, not exceeding £83,478,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS X

12. That a sum, not exceeding £4,757,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS XI

13. That a sum, not exceeding £47,807,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class XI of the Civil Estimates.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1962–63

14. That a sum, not exceeding £12,280,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence: expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, including international subscriptions; and certain grants in aid.

NAVY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63

15. That a sum, not exceeding £285,194,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services.

ARMY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63

16. That a sum, not exceeding £281,320,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services.

AIR ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY AIR EXPENDITURE, 1962–63

17. That a sum, not exceeding £149,020,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services.

NAVY EXPENDITURE 1960–61

18. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £9,989,092 3s. 6d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Navy Services for the year ended 31st March 1961, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorized in the Treasury Minute of 13th February 1962 (H.C. 114) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 210).

ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1960–61

19. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £4,675,101 5s. 7d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Army Services for the year ended 31st March 1961, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorized in the Treasury Minute of 16th February 1962 (H.C. 127) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 210).

AIR EXPENDITURE, 1960–61

20. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £497,875 1s. 3d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Air Services for the year ended 31st March, 1961, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by a saving in expenditure from the same Vote as set out in and temporarily authorized in the Treasury Minute of 19th February, 1962 (H.C. 120), and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 210).

[For details of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1962; c. 553–63.]

First Resolution read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND (INDUSTRY AND EMPLOYMENT)

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I beg to move, to leave out "£7,078,200" and insert "£7,077,200" instead thereof.
In opening this debate, I naturally begin by offering our congratulations to the new Secretary of State for Scotland on taking on what I do not think he will find a very easy job. In doing so, I should like to express to his predecessor our condolences, and also our regret that for some time past his own life has been clouded by personal anxieties and difficulties. I also offer my congratulations to the President of the Board of Trade on surviving.
When someone who is only half Scottish intervenes in a Scottish debate an explanation is clearly called for. In my case, I say at once that I intervene in today's debate not because there is any need for someone who is not fully Scottish on these benches to come in and lend a hand. The new Secretary of State will soon find out, if he does not know already, the temper of the Scottish Labour hon. Members. I do so partly because I have some personal associations with Scotland—my mother was Scottish, as I think most hon. Members know—and partly because all of us, whether we are Scottish, English or Welsh, are concerned about the state of affairs in Scotland. If we are not, we certainly should be—all the more because this state of affairs cannot, in my view, be solved wholly on a Scottish basis.
I would go so far as to say that the convention that only Scottish hon. Members take part or even listen to these debates is, perhaps, something that should be reviewed. I am not sure that it would not be a good thing if a greater number of English and Welsh hon. Members listened to Scottish debates, for they might learn a little more about the situation in Scotland and be even more enthusiastic in pressing on English Ministers the necessity for more vigorous action.
I approach this problem, nevertheless, as an outsider. I have not, I cannot, have the day-to-day personal constituency experience of hon. Members

who represent Scottish constituencies. I look at it from outside, but it may not be a bad thing to have at least one speech of this kind. I must say, recollecting the last occasion on which I had the honour to speak in such a debate two years ago, that comparing the picture then with the picture today I find it depressingly similar. Very little has happened to cause any considerable improvement in the industrial and economic situation in Scotland in these past two years.
I begin with unemployment. The last figure, for June, 1962, was 72,143. The figure last year was 59,000. So we have had in these last 12 months an increase in unemployment in Scotland of about 13,000. It is today, broadly speaking, at the same level as it was two years ago. If one looks at the longer table of figures showing the relationship of unemployment in Scotland to unemployment in the rest of Great Britain, the figures vary a little from area to area but, by and large, they remain obstinately the same.
While Scotland has some 10 to 11 per cent. of the total population, its unemployment share is 18 per cent. If one compares, for example, not just the unemployment figures but the way in which they have been changing lately, there is little room fox satisfaction. It is true that in recent months there has been some slight decline in unemployment, but it is less than the seasonal decline. The change, for example, between March and April of this year was a reduction of 1,106. The seasonal reduction—that is, what should have happened—was a figure of 4,200. For April and May the reduction was 2,572, while the seasonal reduction should have been 4,200. The reduction between May and June was 3,274, but seasonally it should have fallen by 5,100. So there is little comfort for us in these more recent figures.
If we turn to the ratio of persons out of work to jobs available, the contrast between Scotland and Britain as a whole shows that until recently for every job in Scotland there were four people out of work looking for it, whereas in Britain as a whole the figure was about equal. Today the position is slightly worse than that, because it is five out of work in


Scotland for every job available, while there are fewer than two out of work in England for every job available.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: While my right hon. Friend is quoting the English figures, will he make a differentiation between the figures for the north-east of England and the rest of the country, because the figures for the North-East are comparable with those for Scotland?

Mr. Gaitskell: My hon. Friend is perfectly right, but there is to be a debate on unemployment in the North-East and I think that today, if my hon. Friend will allow me, I will contrast the position in Britain as a whole with the position in Scotland, leaving it to my hon. Friend and others to deal with the point he raised next week.
These figures of unemployment showing the contrast of unemployed in relation to vacancies need to be reinforced by three other sets of facts. It is still the case that there is a steady movement of population out of Scotland every year. Over the decade it has averaged about 25,000 a year, but in the Quarterly Return of the Registrar-General for Scotland, for the quarter ended 31st December last, it is stated:
The natural increase in population during the year ended 30th June, 1961, was 37,600 and the estimated net migration loss was 34.200 of which it is estimated 25,900 was to other parts of the United Kingdom and 8,300 abroad.
If one adds that to the amount of unemployment one gets a figure of very nearly 100,000 persons. That is what we have to think of. That is what we have to contend with.
Another figure which must be brought into the picture is the way in which there has been over the last five years a steady decline in male employment in Scotland. This has fallen from 1,606,000 in 1956 year by year to 1,554,000 in 1961.
On top of all this there is something else which must be borne in mind. The standard of living of a country or an area is not only dependent on the level of wages and the number actually out of work; it is also dependent on the proportion of the total population employed in gainful employment. In other words, there are some areas where one will find far more wives and women generally at work and far less in other

areas. Professor Wilson, who was one of the members of the Toothill Committee, gave an estimate in a recent article. He said that if what he called the "Scottish participation rate"—that is, the proportion of the total population engaged in gainful employment—could have been raised in 1959 to the average for Britain, it would have involved another 90,000 workers at work in Scotland.
This is some indication of the general position that still obtains and has obtained all these years while the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been in power.
What are the consequences of this obvious, indeed deplorable lack of balance in our British economy? First, there is the sheer waste involved—the sheer waste in unemployment, the sheer unhappiness caused by people being unable to get jobs and the sheer unhappiness caused by the fear of unemployment, always the greater when the level of unemployment is high.
Then there are the consequences to the rest of the country. This state of affairs in Scotland carries with it a steady flow of persons southwards to England, to the South and East and to the Midlands. And what happens when they get there? They add very substantially to the housing problems in the Midlands, London and the south eastern areas. Inevitably they increase the traffic congestion, and it is not altogether too fanciful to say that when we are considering the problems of the homeless in London and the Midlands, although one does not ascribe them to people coming down from Scotland, it is fair to say that this lack of balance in the development of the economy is one of the factors underlying that particular tragedy.
There is also the inevitable effect that such movements of population and overcrowding in the South-East have upon land prices. Indeed, unless we take control of this situation—and what I am saying now applies not only to Scotland but to the whole problem of the location of industry—we are going to get into a state of affairs when the greater part of our population will be confined in an oblong shape running from the north-west Midlands down to the South-East. Already the expert town planners call it the coffin, because it is shaped


like a coffin, and it is up to us to see that we do not get incarcerated in this way.
There is one other argument to which I personally attach a good deal of importance, and it is this. We have had to contend in this country over the past years—it is almost a continuous problem —with the difficulty of achieving industrial expansion without inflation. One difficulty that arises from this is that as we expand in the areas of the Midlands and the South we run into shortages of labour very quickly, and because of those shortages of labour various inflationary tendencies are created.
If, instead of that, the demand, so to speak, could be spread out over the whole country so that the reduction in unemployment took place at the same level everywhere, we would be able to have a good deal more expansion without having the fear of inflation constantly upon us. Therefore, there is every argument—human, planning and economic —in favour of trying to correct the lack of balance which has plagued Scotland and indirectly plagued the rest of the country all these years.
Behind all this difficulty lies something else, and that is the low rate of production increase in Scotland. Quite rightly the Toothill Committee put its finger on this and has said that what is wrong is the lack of growth in Scotland, for if we have the growth we shall almost certainly have the employment as well. Indeed, the figure is a depressing one. If one contrasts the British record, say, between 1954 and 1961 the industrial production increased by 20 per cent. It increased in Scotland by 11 per cent. One has to remember in quoting these figures that the British rate is the worst but one in Europe. The Scottish one, therefore, is far below this.
It is true that in the last couple of years, in 1960 and 1961, Scotland expanded faster than England. The Scottish rate of industrial production went up 2 per cent. in those years, while the British rate went up by only 1 per cent. All we can say is that the only occasion when Scotland does a little better than the rest of the country is when the rest of the country is doing extraordinarily badly.
I submit that these facts are alone a crushing indictment of Tory policies and

Tory rule over these years. Whatever they may have done, they show that no real impact has been made upon the problems of Scotland's economy. They show, indeed, that these policies have been what can only be described as an utter and complete failure. During the last few years we have had the addition of one Minister of State and one Undersecretary of State for Scotland, almost doubling the total force on the Scottish Front Bench—an increase from three to five. I can only say that I do not think that the two additional Ministers have earned their salaries.
What is the reason for the failure? In my view, it is essentially because the Government have neither planned nor carried out a plan to deal with the situation. After virtually neglecting the whole problem prior to 1958, when they did not really operate the development area Acts which were on the Statute Book, and broadly speaking allowed firms to go wherever they liked and gave very little inducement to firms to set up in these development areas, they then, and particularly after 1959, began to make some effort. None of us would deny for a moment the value of such things as the new strip mill, the B.M.C. works at Bathgate or the other works at Linwood. Certainly some jobs have been created. Nobody denies that, and I dare say that we shall hear again this afternoon that there are a lot more jobs "in the pipeline". I think right hon. Gentlemen opposite have pipelines on the brain.
The point—and it is very simple—is that it is no use talking about creating some jobs unless we relate these to the jobs which are disappearing. This is what has been happening and this is the reason for the failure. If the jobs had not disappeared the new jobs created by Government action would have had their impact on the unemployment figures, but they have not done so. What is needed is to set targets in relation to what is likely to happen—in other words, to estimate the losses of jobs that are likely to occur, to take them into account, to plan accordingly and to carry out one's plan.
What are the prospects? I must say, looking at the "Report on Industry and Employment in Scotland", that it is difficult to feel particularly optimistic.


I turn to the part entitled "Developments affecting the future" and to the chapter dealing with "Productive Industry". Under "Engineering and electric-cal goods", the Report says:
But since the prospects are that investment in plant and machinery in the United Kingdom will be little higher than last year, the rate of increase in the output in Scotland is likely to be less than it was in 1961—unless there is a sharp increase in production for export markets.
On "Shipbuilding and marine engineering", paragraph 165 says:
… the outlook for the shipbuilding and marine engineering industries in Scotland, as in the United Kingdom as a whole, is still far from promising.
The paragraph dealing with "Metal goods not elsewhere specified" states:
The immediate prospects for this group seem somewhat doubtful in view of the fall in their production in 1961…
On the question of steel, the Report is rather surprisingly a little more optimistic. Seeing that the steel industry is working at only 60 per cent. capacity in Scotland, it would indeed be a very gloomy thing if we were to expect something worse than that.
Under the section dealing with "Textiles, leather and clothing", the Report describes the outlook as "not bright". Under "Food, drink and tobacco", it says:
… there is little ground for expecting any marked increase in activity.
Under "Bricks, pottery, glass, cement, etc.", it says:
The outlook … depends to a very large extent on the available markets for refractory goods and building bricks. For the latter there is little prospect of any increase …
Under "Timber, furniture, etc.", the Report says:
… the outlook appears more settled than for some time, but the level of output is low.
This is a pretty gloomy prospect which the new Secretary of State faces. Behind all that is the concern which we all feel at the prospect in the coal mining industry, and I should now like to say a few words about that industry. We recently had a statement from the former Secretary of State as to what the Coal Board thought was likely to happen. The Coal Board has carried out a survey, and none of us questions the need for that. On the contrary, it is the sort of thing

which ought to be done so that we can get some idea of what is likely or might happen.
To what does it all amount? It amounts to this, that whereas already the manpower in the mining industry in Scotland has fallen by some 20,000 in the past four years and is now down to 62,000, this is going to be further reduced first of all by the absolute extinction and disappearance of the collieries in Class C—the ones where the physical conditions necessitate closure—where indeed some 8,000 jobs will be lost; then, if out of the 16,000 in Class B, that is to say, the collieries about which there is uncertainty, the future of which will depend on the economic situation, we take 4,000 workers—certainly not an unduly pessimistic figure—this means that by 1966 there will be no more than about 50,000 miners in Scotland.
Can this be stopped? Naturally, this is the first question we must all ask ourselves. Clearly, there is nothing one can do about loss of jobs as a result of purely physical decline. We all know that for some years there have been pits, particularly in Lanarkshire, Which have been going out. The jobs disappear with the coal. Moreover, I do not think that one can expect the National Coal Board, given the market situation which it faces, fox Which it is not responsible, deliberately to produce coal in more expensive rather than cheaper ways. This may seem hard to people who live in Scotland, but I feel bound to point it out. We must put ourselves in the position of the Board. I do not see how one could justify producing coal where it was more difficult to get it when it could be produced where it was easier to get it.
There seem to me to be two alternatives when one considers the Class B group of collieries. We may find—this is something to which the Government must give urgent attention—that the closure of collieries in this group would create very grave social consequences, that it would involve creating derelict areas, villages and towns, and that we could not tolerate these consequences. If that be so, and it is the view of the Government that those consequences must be prevented, there is a clear responsibility upon them to pay the Coal Board to keep the collieries going,


in other words, to pay a subsidy. It is not reasonable to expect the Coal Board for any length of time to produce in an uneconomic manner because the Government cannot think of anything else to do with the labour which is available.
I do not believe that this is in the least a satisfactory solution. It may be necessary in some cases. It may be necessary for a short period. It may be —I do not want to press the point too far—that arrangements can be made with the Coal Board for it to sustain the inevitable losses over a short period.
The way out is clear enough. Alternative jobs must be provided for the redundant labour. This must be done not as a sort of last-minute afterthought. It must be done as part of a proper plan to take into account the reduction in employment created by colliery closures, known in advance, with the Government seeing to it that the new factories and other places of employment are available at the time, as and when collieries are to close. The time to plan is now. It is no use waiting. This is something which must be done from now onwards.
This leads me to the broader questions of policy in relation to Scotland as a whole. I say to the Government and to the new Secretary of State, for heaven's sake stop being quite as complacent as Ministers have been on this subject in recent years. Complacency is really defeatism for it implies that one can do no better, that one is satisfied with present circumstances. Also, Ministers must stop attacking those who think it their duty to put forward the facts. I have read all the debates and, in my view, there has been far too much in the way of reproaches passed upon anyone who says that something ought to be done. What does the President of the Board of Trade and his colleagues expect the Opposition to do? Is it not our job, as indeed it is his job, to realise what is wrong, to point it out, and to say what should be done?
When we say that the situation is very unsatisfactory and that there has been no improvement, as there has been no improvement—the figures show it— we are not decrying Scottish industry, we are not decrying the skill of Scottish workers, we are not creating a bad atmosphere. We are simply drawing attention, the attention not only of Scot-

land but of Britain as a whole, to the facts and demanding that action shall be taken. Let us have no more of this nonsense. Let the Government accept that they have not solved the problem. If they start from there, they will, I think, get a somewhat better response from this side of the House.
I will give an example of what I mean. In the Report on Industry and Employment in Scotland there are several references to the "record" level of production in 1961. A man who talks about the record level of production in 1961 because production has gone up a bit although at an appallingly slow rate shows that he does not understand the first thing about growth. If one is interested in growth, one does not speak of a record just because one year is a little bit up on another. One speaks about records only when the pace of advance is much greater than it has been. Pace is what matters. There is an unpleasant similarity between these constant references to the record year of 1961 and the Prime Minister's famous remark, "You have never had it so good". Anything that is at all better, better than the year before, is regarded as satisfactory. That is the implication, but it does not do, especially in regard to Scotland.
In these Reports, instead of presenting us with a plain report about what has happened and an account of what is expected to happen, the Government should do something else. They should not write and speak as though the situation was beyond their control, as though such and such had happened and they are telling us that something else will happen. They should give us targets and compare the targets with what they have achieved. This is the kind of report which we shall expect from the Secretary of State next year. He can tell us what he is trying to do and how far he has succeeded. He may not succeed, but at least he would give the impression of trying if he were to set it out in that way instead of giving us this, so to speak, descriptive report which is all we have now.
I urge the Secretary of State to set himself definite targets. Here are some. They are vary much the same as those put forward by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) which recently


visited the farmer Secretary of State. Let him bring unemployment in Scotland down to 40,000. That would be at about the British percentage level. Another 30,000 jobs would have to be found in Scotland on that account. Bring the migration down to, say, 5,000. Some people would say that it ought to stop altogether, but I do not go so far as that. The movement of 5,000 one way or another would be so small as not to be worth bothering about.
Give Scottish industry the same target as the National Economic Development Council has given for Britain as a whole, 4 per cent. per annum. That is not a great deal to ask. Indeed, this is the figure now not for industry but for the whole economy. For industry it will almost certainly be higher. But I should be content for the moment if the Secretary of State were to accept 4 per cent. per annum increase for Scottish industry. Next, the Secretary of State should work out, on the basis of these targets, the number of new jobs which are likely to be needed, bearing in mind, of course, the number of existing jobs which will disappear.
These are not unreasonable proposals. If they were to be set out and accepted as targets, with everyone working towards them, this alone, I believe, would make a tremendous difference to the atmosphere.
I believe, strange as it may seem, that one of the factors which determines the rate of industrial expansion is the expectations of the industrialists. Therefore, if we set them a target which is not wholly unreasonable we have a better chance of getting there. If that applies to England, as I think it does, it can perfectly well apply to Scotland. I have not worked out the exact number of new jobs to be provided by the Government, but the Scottish Council on industry has done so. Does the Secretary of State accept the figures which the Council has put forward? I think that they suggest that he will have to find 15,000 jobs a year for the next eight years. Is that right? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that? If not, where is it wrong, and what does he suggest as an alternative?
It goes without saying that was is planned for Scotland must be linked with

what is planned for Britain as a whole. We have a National Economic Development Council, which is supposed to have, or was going to have, a plan for Britain. Can we be assured by the Secretary of State that within that plan there will be a regional plan for Scotland?
Having set the plans and targets and worked it all out, it has to be implemented. It cannot be implemented by the Secretary of State alone. What happens in Scotland depends in the last resort on what happens in the country as a whole. Unless we get expansion in Britain, we shall not get much expansion in Scotland. The easiest way to get firms to go to Scotland is to expand, and then they will be much more likely to go there because they will not be able to get workers anywhere else. There is, therefore, an overwhelming case for general expansion for the sake of Scottish industry.
There are specific measures which should be taken. There must be a tougher I.D.C. policy in London, the South-East and the Midlands. There must be a more vigorous policy of inducements to firms to go to Scotland. Let us have no more talk about direction of labour and direction of industry. No one has ever proposed this. Of course, we cannot direct labour in peace time, and no one suggests that we can. We cannot direct industry if we mean by that that we compel people to make losses. It is no use thinking in those terms. What we want is something that can be done, namely, to be extremely tough in refusing to allow people to set up in areas of full employment and be extremely generous, if that is the right word, in giving inducements to them to set up in areas like Scotland. That is a practical policy and it can be carried out.
Very belatedly, and after a great deal of pressure from this side of the House and encouragement from the Toothill Committee, I believe that the Government have conceded that there is some case for building advance factories. I believe that a couple of them have been built or are being built, but we could have a very much bigger programme of this kind.
There are some very interesting specific proposals in the Toothill Report


about the financial inducements which might be offered to firms. I should like to know what the Government think of those proposals. Do they commend themselves to the Government? If not, what else can they suggest? There is undoubtedly the special problem of the shortage of skilled labour which might arise in Scotland when there is still unemployed unskilled labour. That points to the need for a very special policy of training in Scottish industry.
All of this must be associated with the right social policies. Here, I propose to refer to one matter only, but it is a matter of supreme importance, namely, housing. Two years ago, I referred to the state of affairs in Glasgow, and I do so again today. I propose to give the figures for housing in Scotland on 30th April this year which have been made available to me by one of my hon. Friends. This is the picture which is presented. Almost half the houses in the City have only one or two rooms and over 400,000 people living in them. In Central Glasgow, two-thirds of the houses are only one- or two-roomed houses. Thirty-four thousand people live more than four persons to the room, and 90,000 people live more than three persons to the room. Just over half of Glasgow's families have a bath in the house. Therefore, just under half have no bath in the house. Over one-third of them share a W.C. In the Gorbals, only one family in five has a W.C. in the house and only 3 per cent. a bath. This is today, 1962, not 1862, and this is allowed to go on.
The late lamented Minister of Housing and Local Government, who has departed from the Government Front Bench—[Interruption.] I have a certain affection for him. I was about to say that we can at least say this of him. Before he left office, he discovered that there were slums in Liverpool. I think that the Secretary of State might pay a visit to Glasgow and look at the slums there.
All this, of course, might be justifiable or, at any rate, there would be some excuse for it if in recent years every effort had been made to get rid of these conditions—in other words, if year by year the number of houses being built in

Scotland was increasing. But, unhappily, exactly the opposite is the case. I am sure that my hon. Friends know these figures all too well. Nevertheless, I cannot forbear from quoting them. In 1955, 34,000 new houses were completed; in 1958, 32,000; in 1960, 28,500; and in 1961, 27,230. Year by year, the number has declined, and the decline is most marked in local authority housing, which alone can deal with the problem of Glasgow's slums.
In 1955, 24,000 local authority houses ware built; in 1958, 22,000; in 1960, 17,000; and in 1961, 16,800. The fall goes on. In the first quarter of 1961, 4,026 local authority houses were built and, in the first quarter of 1962, 3,333. At this rate, at the end of the year we shall be down to about 13,000 local authority houses. This is really disgraceful; there is no other word for it. It is really intolerable that people should be compelled to go on living in these conditions while the number of houses built which alone can relieve them is falling year by year. This must be put right.
The people of Scotland have their own culture, their own characteristics, their own beautiful country and their own skills. They have contributed a great deal to Britain, to the Commonwealth and to the world, but it is a sad fact that decade by decade, as a proportion of the people of Britain, their numbers are falling. In 1801, over 160 years ago, Scots people made up 18 per cent. of the combined population of England and Wales. By the middle of the century, the figure had fallen to 16 per cent., and by the end of the century to 13½ per cent. It has fallen decade by decade ever since until in 1961 it was down to 11½ per cent.
The question is whether this process is to continue year by year, decade by decade. If so, Scotland will cease to count effectively. This is something that we do not want to happen. We would regard it not only as bad for Scotland but bad for Britain as a whole. It must be stopped and it can be stopped, but that can only be done by policies totally different from those which have hitherto been pursued by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. They cannot solve the problem on the basis of their


philosophy. Although I wish the Secretary of State well and although we hope for the best, I do not disguise from him my foreboding that he is unlikely to solve this problem, and that it is unlikely to be solved until we have a new Government with new men and new methods.

4.40 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): In the last two years, my longer speeches in the House, begging to move that we should adjourn, have been greeted quietly but often, I believe, with pleasure and relief by hon. Members. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for showing courtesy, understanding and, I almost felt, sympathy for the task that I have in hand. I am confident also that his hon. Friends have some of the same feelings—perhaps for the last time in a debate in this House.
The Leader of the Opposition has painted a picture of the Scottish economy which is serious enough. I do not in any way deny that this is the case, or that the people of Scotland do not have grave cause for anxiety. Old firms like the North British Locomotive Company prepare to close their doors, the shale industry in West Lothian approaches its end, and coal mines in several areas of Scotland, according to the National Coal Board's assessment last week, are becoming uneconomic. These are grim enough items in the Scottish account, and I will be no party to any attempt to bury them in easy phrases.
Unemployment generally in Scotland has increased within the last twelve months by, according to my figures, 12,000, and the rate has remained persistently twice as high as the Great Britain level. The fact that this has been a major preoccupation of all parties for generations does not lessen its vital importance, and the first pledge that I freely offer as Secretary of State is that I shall strive with all the energy I can command to help abolish this grim distinction between Scotland and England. In any such endeavour, I know that I can count on the good will at least of all parties, for in the long view this is a matter which leaps over all boundaries.
Taken at its face value, this unemployment picture would be deeply disturbing, but I have tried to take a look behind the scenes to see what else is also happening to find out whether there are things to encourage us. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I do not do this in a spirit of trying to paint a rosy picture or to gloss over anything that is bad. Just as I accept that the Opposition have a perfect right, if they desire, to point out all the bad things that they see, so I regard it as my job to try to attract new industry to Scotland; and if I can find things that I consider genuinely right to point out to do that, I shall say them.
I know that the whole House will join with me when I say how much I regret the departure of my predecessor as Secretary of State. For many years, he has been battling with the tremendous task of laying new foundations for the national economy, foundations on which I hope I may have the good fortune to be able to build. In good times and in bad, my right hon. Friend has worked with one single purpose in mind: the good of Scotland. He has often had a rough time in the course of our debates and that is not an unusual feature of Scottish discussions. I think, however, that hon. Members opposite would agree that he has throughout retained the respect and affection of us all. [An HON. MEMBER: "And of the Prime Minister?"]
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is still with us, and I am glad also to have the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, who has been doing so much for Scotland at home and abroad, and my three Undersecretaries to help and advise me.
It is common ground among all of us that what Scotland needs is capital re-equipment. This applies both in the older industries which have a promising future—and there are many of these— and in the newer industries based upon newly-developed knowledge, skills and techniques.
When I come to take a preliminary look at the industrial scene, I find four significant places where development can be seen well under way. The first is in the construction industry, that part of our economy on which we are dependent for the building of factories, and so on.


In the year 1961, the year which we are reviewing, the volume of work was up 10 per cent. on the previous year, beating the figure of 6½ per cent. for the corresponding increase in the United Kingdom as a whole. In the past, we have taken pride in such victories. In the future, we will strive to set the English a target which they will find hard to beat.
Even more recently, at the end of March this year, 8 million square feet of factory space was under construction and 5 million square feet had been approved for building. This suggests that the target of 7 million square feet per year proposed by the Scottish Council is within our reach and that at least some of the factories which we need so badly are going up.
The second of my inquiry points was directed at industrial plant. An impressive figure is recorded on page 39 of the White Paper which is before us. In the four years 1958 to 1961, expenditure on plant and machinery was £269 million. The 1961 figure was at least 57 per cent. up on 1958. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about using this sort of figure.
My third point was an inquiry into the balance of employment in expanding and contracting industries. This is, perhaps, the most important thing for a proper understanding of the processes which are now at work in Scotland.
The present evolution of Scotland's industrial economy comprises two opposing movements—on the one hand, the development of new industries and the expansion of some of our existing industries; and, on the other hand, the contraction of a few of our traditional industries. While such contraction creates difficulties, it is inevitable when the industrial pattern is being changed to meet the changing pattern of demand.
Just to study the figures can itself be misleading, because a new job in a developing and expanding industry is of much greater human importance than a job where the employee is looking over his shoulder and wondering when his industry may be forced to close. But too often so much emphasis is given to the contraction as to create the quite wrong impression that Scottish industry is showing little signs of life.
To show how wrong that impression is, let me quote some figures. Between mid-1959 and mid-1961, the main groups of industries Chat reduced their total employment did so to She extent of 37,000. This is a big loss, I agree, but against it the main groups of new and expanding industries increased their total employment by no less than 72,000. On balance, therefore, there were 35,000 more jobs in the middle of 1961 than there were two years earlier. For manufacturing industry only, the corresponding figures show a net gain of 28,200.
I know that the figures are not as good in the current year, but I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, who asked me to comment on the target, that the fact that in the two previous years we were able to come up to the target suggested by the Toothill Committee gives me confidence that if we work hard, we can do it again.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1957 and 1958 the net reduction in the number of jobs was mo less than 48,000? Therefore, it is not surprising that there was some upturn after that tremendous fall.

Mr. Noble: As I tried to say earlier, I am not in any way attempting to disguise bad things which have happened in the past. What I am hoping to do is to reach the target which the Toothill Committee has set for us, and reach it soon.
The Scottish Council, in its recent Report, made a similar appraisal, and went on to say:
The picture during this period is not that of an economy rushing downhill to disaster; it reflects the vigorous efforts made by all sections of the community producing new industrial growth sufficient to outweigh the inevitable decline in some of the older established industries.
Fourthly, I sought to find out what Scottish industry itself was doing. Too often it is said that industrialists in Scotland are not doing enough to help themselves and that the real growth arises only from the incoming firms. This is simply not true. Our established Scottish industries in 1959–61 provided about three-quarters of the new jobs in manufacturing industry. This is not to minimise the great value of the new firms, to which the right hon. Gentleman


referred, but simply to get our facts straight.
May I now look more generally at the whole picture. I should like to refer first to the Report of the Toothill Committee on the Scottish economy. This Report has made a substantial impact both inside and outside Scotland, and its emphasis on economic growth has now become widely accepted as being of the greatest importance to our economy. During the past few months the Scottish Council has itself been considering the Report and has decided that some of the recommendations can most suitably be followed up by the Council itself in conjunction with the other bodies concerned. Thus a number of recommendations which in the Council's view mainly affect, for example, the local authorities, the universities, the trade unions and bodies representative of management and employers, will be dealt with in this way.
Of the recommendations affecting the Government, those which have attracted most attention, because of their undoubted interest and importance, are the proposals which, broadly speaking, concern distribution of industry policy. The Toothill Report has, in fact, been one of a number of factors which have drawn attention to the contrast between the rapid development taking place in the already congested areas in the South and Midlands—the coffin, to use the right hon. Gentleman's lugubrious phrase— and the position in Scotland. The issues here are fundamental and a lot of new ground has to be broken. In the meantime, I can assure the Committee that a policy of controlling the issue of industrial development certificates to firms wishing to expand in the labour shortage areas—a point which the Scottish Council raised last week—will be rigorously maintained.
The Scottish Council, in its interview last week, laid great emphasis on the importance of defining more precisely the inducements we have to offer under the Local Employment Act, which was also stressed in the Toothill Report, and referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. This is a difficult problem. I myself admit frankly that I do not know the answer to it, but I will discuss it urgently with my right hon. Friend the President

of the Board of Trade, in whose province it lies.
The Toothill Report also contains a range of other recommendations of a very varied nature which concern a considerable number of Government Departments—a not unusual feature in Scotland. A detailed statement of the Government's views on these recommendations is being prepared for the Scottish Council and this statement will be made available to hon. Members.

Mr. E. G. Willis: When?

Mr. Noble: Quite soon. Among the recommendations which will be dealt with in this statement are those relating to education and training, housing, and transport and communications, in so far as these have been referred to the Government. The House will, I hope, excuse me if I do not attempt to go through them all in detail this afternoon—a great many hon. Members wish to speak, and our time is short—but a few comments may be helpful.
We are in general sympathy with all the educational recommendations which have been submitted to us; we are also in broad agreement with the housing recommendations endorsing the need to pursue the housing programme intensively where the need is greatest—I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is great in Glasgow—and to encourage private house building for the supervisory and management grades. We have announced this week the decision that the 50 per cant. derating which industry now enjoys will not be withdrawn in 1963.
The Toothill Committee's investigation into the transport of goods was particularly valuable, and I think that it has done much to lay one of the ghosts which may lurk in the board rooms of potential developers. It concluded that, while manufacturing industry in industrial Scotland may be at some disadvantage in this matter, the significance of transport costs has, in its view, been exaggerated. Such costs are only one factor to be considered in choosing the location of an industry and in most new industries they may be quite small relative to the cost of the product. In all cases they may be offset by other considerations such as lower rents, availability of


labour, and the proximity of good port facilities, and so on. I am not surprised at this conclusion since in my travels this spring round the United States of America—where distances are enormous —I heard no industrialist mention transport costs by themselves as a serious handicap.
What the Committee considered was a more important factor is the difficulty which distance sometimes imposes in obtaining supplies without delays and uncertainty. I have heard very little criticism of our Scottish ports, and we have been giving high priority to the improvement of access to them. On roads the Scottish Grand Committee has recently debated our road system as a whole,and we can now foresee in the next few years communications between our industrial belt, the Midlands, London and even the Channel ports being fully up to modern standards.
So far as railway communications are concerned, the review which Dr. Beeching is making of the services provided by British Railways should be completed about the end of the year, when it should be possible to begin an assessment of the future of our railway system. It is quite clear, however, from what he has said that the new British Railways Board will be eager to become competitive with other forms of transport and will improve railway freight services where it is possible for them to provide an efficient, quick and reliable service to manufacturers.
We are all anxious about the risk that considerable lengths of railway line in country areas may be closed entirely. Until the Beeching reviews are completed, no one can properly assess this risk. I can, however, make it quite clear that where a railway closure is the right course in the long run, we will ensure that it is not carried out in such a way as to leave an area bereft of adequate facilities for transport of passengers or freight.
It is clear from all that the Toothill Report said—as it is from day to day knowledge of the Scottish industrial scene—that we have an enormous task ahead in building up new industries, and this will make large calls on our capital resources. These, in the nature of things, cannot be unlimited, and must be concentrated where they will do the most

good for the Scottish economy in the long run.
In seeking new industry we must make sure that the advantages we have to offer are as widely known as possible. To my mind they are space and manpower. By contrast with some other parts of Britain there is more than enough space available in Scotland to accommodate all the industrial development we could want—and it need not be only in the Forth and Clyde Basin. There are Dundee and Aberdeen and many country areas, including the Highlands, where sites and good labour axe waiting for development. We do not want to spread congestion in our central belt and produce our own national coffin through lack of foresight. To bring space and labour together we have the overspill arrangements for rehousing, in the new towns and other industrial growing points throughout Scotland, the 300,000 surplus population of Glasgow who are bound to be displaced from the city over the next twenty years as the clearance and redevelopment of its congested and obsolete central area proceeds.
Manpower is, I think, our major asset; it is today perhaps the scarcest commodity in Western Europe. We must use it effectively, and that means training and technical education. These in themselves cannot provide jobs, but they can help people to do their jobs better, and thus create conditions for securing the greater productivity and efficiency which are essential to the growth which has been mentioned so often.
Education authorities, with the support of the Government, have embarked on a major building programme to the value of over £22 million designed to provide a network of new and improved technical colleges up and down the country. We shall see many new centres coming into use over the next few years. Many local authorities have, with the encouragement of the Government, offered to help industry with its training problem by providing first year apprenticeship courses.
What can industry do for itself? Firms, I suggest, can look at their own training arrangements. Are their young workers getting effective instruction on the job? Is it supplemented by an


appropriate course of study at a local technical college? There can be no question of firms saying that they cannot afford to train. In the long run, they cannot afford not to.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has laid claim to the Scottish blood which flows through his veins, and that he stressed throughout his speech the feeling, which I believe is genuine among Members on all sides of the House, of wanting to try and help in getting the right answer for Scotland. I am a Scot, and I am conscious of the fact that I belong to a resourceful and imaginative people. We have come through 'bad times in our history with our colours flying so proudly that people have been forced to take note of us. It is not to be forgotten that, once before, when the old commercial fabric of Glasgow collapsed, the Glasgow merchants created a new industrial structure based on one of the great rivers of the world—which they themselves had formed out of a Lowland stream. And Edinburgh men once determined to build a new city for themselves, and produced a capital famous for its architecture, its learning and its art. Enterprise is natural to the Scots. I believe that it can be brought back into the very centre of Scottish life and thinking once again. This, at any rate, is what I covet.
I believe that a beginning has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew to the laying of a foundation on which a new industrial renaissance can be built. But it is only a beginning. I believe that the Government now can create confidence and by vigorous and immediate action trigger off, when world conditions permit, a fresh surge forward. But the Government by itself cannot command the success we need.
I have shown, I hope, earlier in my speech the great part that Scottish industrialists and business men have in fact played in developing their side of our national life in the last two years. I assure them of the Government's knowledge and appreciation of what they have done, and would encourage them to do even more in the immediate future. Time is not on our side. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This is very true.

New ideas, new capital and enlightened management, with good labour relations, must become even more conspicuous. The Scottish trades unions, which have equally made a most useful contribution, have an important part to play, too. If I read the signs right there is a real willingness of many of their leaders to streamline and modernise their ideas, and so earn the respect of their members and of Scotland as a whole.
Local authorities are sometimes forgotten in the context of industry, and yet, with their planning powers—including the provision of industrial sites, and in special cases of factories, too—their housing duties, and their general responsibilities for creating an attractive environment, they have a major part to play. Speed in decision and action is no less important from them than it is from the rest of us.
I have tremendous faith in the people of Scotland—the men and women whose work has shown that "Made in Scotland" can be a real selling point in world markets. If we in the Government can give them the technical colleges and the training facilities to equip them fully for the new industries, as well as the best of the old, we need fear no lack of craftsmanship. But we need to ask more still from them. We need to provide the opportunities first, but then to inspire our younger generation with the feeling that there is still a great adventure for them. In this age, it is not necessary to cross the seas or even the English border. Their adventure lies at home—to rebuild a Scotland of which they and their children will be justly proud.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. John Strachey: Like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I should like to offer my sympathies to the departing Secretary of State, especially in his personal difficulties and problems. I should also like to join in my right hon. Friend's congratulations to the new Secretary of State. I am bound to say, however, that what I think we on these benches want to be able to do is not only to congratulate the Secretary of State, but to congratulate Scotland; and, so far, I must tell him that he has given us very


little evidence in his speech of anything on which we can congratulate Scotland because of his appointment.
His speech seemed to me to be most agreeably read. I can say that for it, but, apart from that, it appeared to me to fulfil the worst predictions and forebodings of my right hon. Friend, when he said that he hoped that this speech would not be purely descriptive. It was purely descriptive. There was no hint of action in it of any sort that I could find, and I say to the Secretary of State that if he is to find a measure of acceptance on these benches for his future speeches there will have to be a little more meat in them, in the sense of proposals, and some suggestions of action, than in the speech which we heard today.
Quite frankly, in my remarks, I shall address myself mainly to the problems, and they are very acute problems, which my own constituency of Dundee faces. They are examples of the problems which Scotland as a whole faces. No great city of Scotland, such as Dundee, can possibly face these problems except against the background of the general problems which face Scotland. I ask the Secretary of State to realise the impact which recent announcements about the contraction of the heavy industries of Scotland, above all, coal mines and railways, have had. It is true to say that Scotland has been aghast at these announcements, and at the prospect which they bring up for the large industrial areas of Scotland, which are still so heavily dependent on heavy industry. My constituency in Dundee is not one of these. It is not essentially a heavy industry town. It is today a textile and engineering town, and, for that reason, it has been comparatively lucky. I say, quite frankly, that it is not at the moment facing as high a degree of unemployment as many other areas of Scotland. Still, we are already facing very severe problems, and we are rather suddenly faced today with a problem which may affect what is still our major industry of jute most acutely.
I refer to the position of the jute industry if we enter the Common Market. If the jute industry of Dundee faced sharp contraction as a result, then, piled on top of all the other blows which Scotland has suffered, and the impact of which

Dundee must share to some extent, it would prove a terrible blow to the city.
Speaking in the House almost exactly a year ago, I said on the subject of the Common Market and the prospect of the jute industry in Dundee that I was by no means an unconditional opponent of entering the Common Market. Nevertheless, I said then and I repeat today that our entry can be supported only if industries such as the jute industry, which are highly concentrated in one particular place, have safeguards provided for them —if our negotiators make the opposite side in the negotiations with whom they are dealing in Brussels realise the intense human problem which would be occasioned by any sharp contraction in this industry. I know nothing of the way in which the negotiations for the jute industry may be going. It may be that they have scarcely begun. But I have tried to make it my business to understand Dundee opinion on both sides of the industry and to discover what Dundee feels is the prospect.

Sir James Duncan: This applies not only to Dundee but to the district around it, too.

Mr. Strachey: I am glad that the hon. Member made that point because it is not only Dundee which is affected, although he will agree that it matters more to Dundee even than to his constituency or to other neighbouring constituencies. But the whole district of industrial north-eastern Scotland is concerned.
As far as I understand it, the position of the industry in respect of entering the Common Market must be considered in two phases. If we enter the Common Market there will presumably be a transitional phase. We must expect that our negotiators will not plunge the industry, without years of warning time in which it can adapt itself, into the full effects which would otherwise arise from joining the Common Market. However, in that transitional phase the fact must, I suppose, be faced that the existing jute control would gradually be dismantled.
I will not attempt to detail the protective devices which in effect give a mark-up or tariff of more than 20 per cent. to the industry. These are what are above all in question, because they give a protective tariff in excess of the


common tariff of the Six. If all these devices were progressively dismantled, the position, even in the transitional years, would be very serious for the industry, because I am informed that about 40 per cent. of it would be vulnerable to this reduction in protection—40 per cent. of the production and roughly 40 per cent. of the labour employed.
If and when that transitional period came to an end, I suppose about the end of the decade, in the 1970s, unless something further were done the industry would depend wholly upon the common tariff upon jute goods which, broadly speaking, today is about 23 per cent. By that time it might be lower. There is no guarantee that the common tariff on jute goods will not be lowered in the meantime, and this will be still more serious. But even with that 23 per cent. degree of protection against Asiatic jute goods, the position would be very grave indeed. There would be no protection at all against European-produced jute, but I do not much complain of that; it might have serious effects but I think that the industry can be asked to stand up to that competition. But with only 23 per cent. protection against Asiatic goods, the position in the industry might be very serious indeed.
I should have thought—it is only a forecast but it is widely snared in Dundee —that some 20 per cent. of the industry and 20 per cent. of the employment might close down, and that would mean an additional 3,000 unemployed workers in the city. Some hon. Members on these benches and elsewhere will say that that is perhaps not an enormous number of unemployed compared with some areas of Lanarkshire, for example. But this comes on top of a prospect which we in Dundee view with a good deal of concern even without this blow. A most well-informed committee, set up by the Lord Provost of Dundee, in which the industries of the city, the chamber of commerce, the trade union organisations and the universities all co-operate, believes that by that time there may be a gap of 5,000 jobs; that on present prospects the unemployment level of the city will be at least 5,000 at that time. With a contraction of the jute industry of the size which I have indicated, the unemployment level would be about 8,000, which is a very sub-

stantial level of unemployment indeed and higher than it has been in Dundee since the war.
This prospect of the Common Market and its effect on the jute industry, therefore, must concern us very closely indeed, and we must expect from whoever replies to this or future debates for the Government some assurance that they are doing their very best for this industry and that there is a sticking point on this industry, as on others, at which they will insist on the interests of employment in the area being safeguarded. Otherwise the prospect which we in Dundee face in this highly concentrated industry—and, in part, in neighbouring cities, too—is very serious.
This problem is the same as the problem in other parts of Scotland. What dismayed me about the Secretary of State's speech was that there seemed to be no positive attempt to suggest the kind of measures for which he would be pressing within the Government on behalf of Scotland. For years we on these benches have been told, for example, that the question of advance factories was a sort of King Charles's head on our part; that we were attaching much too much importance to it and that there were great objections to advance factories. In the closing weeks of the late Secretary of State's régime this was changed and we were told that advance factories were, after all, a good idea. This shows the reluctance with which the Government move to take any positive action. This is because they seem to be governed in this problem by what is fundamentally a laissez-faire philosophy. They have shown no signs of recouping the necessity of positive Government measures adequate to meet the situation.
The Distribution of Industry Act very largely became a dead letter in Dundee. The very office of the Board of Trade in Dundee was closed down in the middle 'fifties. Now the Government are beginning to use those Acts a little, but so much ground has been lost, so little has been done—so little has been prepared. On balance the position gets worse instead of better.
Moreover, this special problem of the jute industry in Dundee haunts those of us who are and must be concerned with the industrial future of the city.


In addition, we feel that something far more positive is required of the Secretary of State—some recognition that the laissez-faire philosophy will not meet the problem of Scotland. This is the very least that we can demand.

5.20 p.m.

Sir Thomas Moore: We on this side of the House are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for the generous tribute he paid to our friend and colleague the former Secretary of State for Scotland. As we all know, my right hon. Friend has earned not alone the friendship but also the affection of everyone on both sides during his term of office. At the same time, we also thank the Leader of the Opposition for his welcome to the new Secretary of State, with whose ordeal today I deeply sympathise, for we have all experienced it in our time when making our first speeches either as new Members or in new positions. We promise the new Secretary of State our good will and our support and we wish him well.
Several reasons have been given as to why the economic situation in Scotland is as it is. But in my view the fundamental cause of the present rate of unemployment, which unfortunately has lasted far too long, is that the Scots are by nature and tradition almost ultra-conservative. I admit that from the political angle the result of the last General Election and the recent result at West Lothian perhaps do not quite confirm that assumption, but apart from politics I believe that my analysis of the Scottish people's nature and traditions is correct.
For far too long, as we all know, Scotland has relied too much on her heavy industries—coal, steel and iron production, shipbuilding, agriculture and the like. Of course, these industries have paid good dividends to the Scots in the past. But the trouble is that the Scots never seem to have foreseen that other types of fuel than coal might come into use; that other nations might build almost as good ships as ours and cheaper; that Scottish-built locomotives might not find the ready markets they had been accustomed to practically all over the world; and that diesel engines might also come into use.
The same applies right throughout our national industrial production in Scotland. It was a state of mind which did not equip our people for the advent of new and unknown industries. Successive Governments of both parties have gradually appreciated the fact, but in deference to my own party and its Ministers, I must say that it was left to the Conservative Government since 1951 to introduce measures definitely to convince Scotland that such light industries, as envisaged in the 1960 Act, might well prove its salvation.
Of course, there were obstacles. Hon. Members opposite are not innocent of providing them. Certain speeches made by certain trade union leaders in Scotland have not been essentially helpful. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] There was the speech by Mr. Moffat two years ago which was a singularly unattractive gesture to English firms which might have been persuaded to come to Scotland for good, available and reliable labour. Indeed, certain Members of the Opposition—and I do not blame them for this—in their desire to berate the Government undoubtedly undermined the confidence of what I call English industrial settlers who would have been willing to come to Scotland had they felt it safe to do so.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I am very desirous that the hon. Gentleman should prove his statement, quite apart from his slanders on trade union leaders. Can he name one firm debarred from coming to Scotland because of statements made in this House or by trade union leaders outside it?

Sir T. Moore: Of course I cannot. I am not in the confidence of all industrial firms who might have thought of coming to Scotland but were put off from doing so by such speeches as the hon. Gentleman might make. About a year ago, during Question Time, there were 13 Questions by Members of the Opposition to the Government—"for goodness sake, give us help—gimme, gimme, gimme." How on earth would prospective industrial settlers from England appreciate that point of view?
We have always held the view—and that, I think, includes hon. Members opposite—that Scotland can be relied


upon to provide labour, ingenuity and skill that English or any other industrialists might reasonably require. That is beginning to be realised, I admit, but the funny thing is that when a Scotsman comes to England, provided he retains a Scottish accent, he is regarded as sound, wise and reliable. But leave him behind in Scotland and very few people axe willing to come and test his qualities on his home soil We have to get over that attitude.
I know so many of our workpeople. They are amongst the most highly-skilled and most reliable workpeople in the world. The sooner we all preach that gospel wherever we go the sooner we will be able to help our own country. Here I must pay tribute to the Scottish Council, which has done a magnificent job in informing British industrialists of the attractive opportunities awaiting them in Scotland. God speed it in its further efforts in this direction. It has done this work in conjunction with the Scottish T.U.C. which has a very powerful and important part to play in inducing or attracting new industries to Scotland. Provided that the Scottish Council and the Scottish T.U.C. work together, I am sure that success will come far more quickly than we expect.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the hon. Gentleman go as far as to agree with the Scottish T.U.C. that it is essential to direct industry to Scotland?

Sir T. Moore: I gather that the Scottish T.U.C. is rather in favour of this, according to some of the recent speeches, but it seems that the party opposite would be resentful of the direction of labour.
One result of the Local Employment Act put through by the present Government is the new town of Livingstone, but there have been many other benefits. I wonder how many hon. Members have studied the Report of the Board of Trade for the year ended March, 1961. It said that £45 million were allocated to Scotland for various projects, including the setting up of new factories, as against only £23 million for England and £8 million for poor old Wales. Amongst other things, 153 projects were covered in Scotland—the same number as for

England—but there were only 50 projects in Wales. That does not look as though the Tories have neglected Scotland.

Mr. John Rankin: Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan) rose—

Sir T. Moore: Not again. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make a long and powerful speech if he gets the opportunity to do so, and he should reserve his comments till then.
I come now to the number of extra jobs created by this effort. We see that 34,000 extra jobs have been provided in Scotland, compared with 44,000 in England, although England is 10 times as populous as Scotland.
A few weeks ago the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) asked my hon. Friend at the Board of Trade what progress had been made in the last two months in encouraging new industrial enterprises to go to Scotland. There have been so many changes in the last few days that I am not sure where my hon. Friend is now, and I am not sure whether to congratulate (him or not.

Mr. Rankin: Mr. Rankin rose—

Sir T. Moore: Good heavens, not again! I do not propose to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
My hon. Friend replied:
In the last two months approval has been given for 31 projects in Scotland, estimated to give rise to some 3,300 jobs, almost all of them in development districts. In addition, some 16 firms new to Scotland have been shown possible sites, but it is too early to say whether any of these will set up factories in Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1962; Vol. 662, c. 270.]
That shows that the process is continuing.

Mr. Rankin: What process?

Sir T. Moore: Oh, my goodness, not again!
There is, however, one point on which in all honesty I must criticise the Government. More research should be centred in Scotland because I believe that research is an indispensable adjunct to almost any kind of industrial development anywhere.
Unemployment in Scotland is undoubtedly high. It is almost double what it is in England, but I wonder whether


anyone has considered the figures given in the United Nation's Report published the other day showing a comparison between unemployment in Scotland and abroad? Here are the facts. The average rate of unemployment in Scotland is 3·1 per cent. compared with 6 per cent. in Belgium, 4·7 per cent. in Western Germany, 7·7 per cent. in Denmark, 9·5 per cent. in Italy and 4·7 per cent. in the United States. Although the unemployment figure in Scotland is far too high, there is some consolation in knowing that other countries are in a worse position.
The right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) referred to the effect on Scotland of our entry into the Common Market. I have been doubtful about whether Scotland would benefit. or lose by the United Kingdom going into the Common Market. I still have doubts, but I was comforted by the speech the other day of Lord Robens who said that Scottish, and indeed English, coal was the cheapest mined in Western Europe and therefore the National Coal Board had no fears about the advent of Britain into the Common Market. I gather from leading Scottish industrialists that they, too, have no great fears about the Common Market, and, as we know, there has always been a close link between Scotland and Europe, and especially France.
I come now to more recent developments. My right hon. Friend referred to such projects as the steel stripmill, the British Motor Corporation's works at Bathgate, the Rootes proposal to set up a factory at Linwood, and many others. The Toothill Committee's Report has been mentioned, and this, I think, puts all these matters into fairly reasonable perspective.
I do not want to overstay my time. I know that there are many hon. Members who want to take part in the debate, and if they speak as much as they have interrupted we shall indeed have a long session.
The proposed closure of uneconomic pits will affect us deeply in Ayrshire. Indeed, it will affect everyone in Scotland. It grieves us to think of all these decent honest, Scottish workpeople being bereft of the jobs in which they, their parents, and possibly their grandparents were brought up and to which they gave

their lives. I have many friends amongst the miners in Scotland. I am not sure whether they vote for me—if they do they conceal it pretty well. Nevertheless, they remain my friends.
The fact is—and here I speak of what I know—that it is not possible to carry on a prosperous brickworks unless there are adequate supplies of suitable brickearth. It is not possible to run a prosperous cement works unless there are suitable and proper supplies, and indeed reserves, of limestone, chalk, and so on. The same consideration applies to coal mines. A coal mine cannot be run on a profitable basis unless there are the necessary reserves of coal to mine.
We are trying to overcome the problem by using the 1960 Act to find jobs to replace those which will be lost by the closure of the pits. I have every confidence that the Government, with the powers they have taken by that Act, will provide adequate jobs, and suitable training for those jobs, for the miners who are displaced from the pits. If I did not believe that, I would not be supporting a Tory Government.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: The hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) seems to take comfort from the way in which some people in Scotland react when the weather is bad. They say that it is a good thing that it is far worse in the South. The hon. Gentleman's consolation to the Scottish economy is to say that other nations are worse off.
I start by joining in the good wishes which have been expressed to the new Secretary of State for Scotland. Although he is not here at the moment, I should like to put on record my gratitude for many kindnesses given to me by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. I disagreed with many of his policies, and even more with his lack of policy on many matters, but in courtesy, in kindness, and in the trouble he took, he was pre-eminent among Ministers, and I hope that his family troubles will improve and that he will have a holiday.
I do not think that it is necessary to go over again the state of Scotland. One thing which has been agreed on both sides of this House in this debate is that there is grave concern about our country. We may, in two years, have


matched the figures suggested by the Scottish Council of 15,000 extra jobs per year, but in fact in the last year there was a decrease in the number of jobs, and soon between 7,000 and 23,000 people are to be thrown out of work in the coal mines, and an unknown number on the railways.
There is no need to pile on the agony or wring our hands about the situation. I want to try to make some suggestions about what might be done. There is one overriding consideration, which is that Scotland will never thrive if it is treated in all respects as an outlying part of Middlesex. The reason we are concerned about Scotland is because it is our country. It is a distinct country. It has traditions of its own and from those traditions it can make a great contribution to world civilisation. If someone does not believe that, he might as well accept emigration and let the people go to Luton, Coventry, or London. But if he believes it, then he must allow Scotland to develop differently from England. That means giving the Scots some responsibility and some power over their own affairs. The decline in Scotland is intimately bound up with the steady draining away of power and influence in political, financial and social matters to London and the South-East.
But even before we get the more radical alterations in our Government which are necessary, there is a good deal which could be done within the existing framework. The first thing that we should look at is the Scottish Office. We spend too little time discussing the instruments of Government. In particular we should look in the Scottish Office to see if there is any machinery for development within it. We cannot achieve expansion and the targets which I hope will be set before us unless we have the machinery to do it.
Is there a development unit in the Scottish Office? I may be told that there is, and that this Report on Industry is the first fruits of it. But is not this merely a reorganisation of departments inside the Office? What I mean by a development unit is not simply another administrative department. I certainly do not mean a big department; I mean a small unit of experts in such matters

as trade, business, economics, sociology, statistics and town and country planning. What I want to see this unit doing is, first, suggesting initiatives in development and, secondly, co-ordinating the work of the departments within the Scottish Office and the other bodies in Scotland which are concerned with development, and also co-ordinating the work between the Scottish Office and the other Ministries in London.
If we are to have that we must have, in the machinery of Government, some new sorts of civil servant. I should like to see Scotland carrying out a pilot scheme involving some changes in the Civil Service. We have one of the best Civil Services in the world, and I pay very high tribute to it, but its job today is quite different from what it was 50 or 100 years ago. It should now recruit more people who are not trained exclusively in the arts disciplines. We must try to give civil servants a sabbatical year to refresh themselves, and try seconding people from the Civil Service to industry and other people from industry to the Civil Service. This must be paralleled by some changes in our procedure here. We should exercise a close democratic control over development in Scotland, and I am not convinced that we do this best by having a rather tightly packed series of Scottish debates in the late summer on the Estimates for the previous year. The Scottish Grand Committee might meet occasionally throughout the year and, instead of reviewing the past, review what is taking place in Scotland at the moment.
If we had such a structure for planning in the Scottish Office, I should like to see it paralleled lower down by development authorities in regions and for specific purposes. I have always thought that we should have a Highland Development Board, and I am more and more convinced of that. In point of fact, there are slight signs that this sort of thing is going to happen. We already have county development officers. I note that in the new town of Livingstone two men have been given the job of co-ordinating and planning development. These tentative steps must be followed up by St. Andrew's House, and brought together in a system. By that means we will create a network to undertake the business of development from the Government side.
This should be matched by getting firms to organise themselves, industry by industry, to undertake research and to provide better statistics and information, than we have mow, especially about the intentions of firms in an industry. This is done on the Continent, and it is a great help to any national system of planning. It is odd that we have to spend so much on Continental experience, and are now sending people to Norway to try to find out how to deal with remote communities.
Next, we must get rid of our love of amateurism. We are deeply suspicious of experts. We have carried this suspicion far too far. I do not say a word against the persons involved; I am talking about the policies or principles. But it is indicative of our attitude that the White Fish Authority, the Herring Industry Board, and the Crofters Commission, are all headed by people who have no expertise or long experience in the fields which they are meant to control or develop. This may be all right so long as they are simply administrative, but if they are to develop we must bring in a new type of man.
I am not saying that the White Fish Authority should have a fisherman at its head; far from it. I do not want the men on these bodies to be too narrowly concentrated on the technicalities of their own industries, but if they are to develop we must have at their head the sort of people who know about selling things, and marketing. We must also have people who are in the prime of life, and not people who are retired. We want people who are ready to make this their life's work and profession, and who will tackle it in a professional way.
All over Scotland today we find sick communities. They have suffered from depopulation for so long that they have lost all their best people, or their sole industry has closed down. It is necessary to put capital into these industries, but that is not always enough, because there is no local initiative. Here again, we want people who are trained in the techniques of sociology and so forth, who will carry out surveys of these communities and draw up a co-ordinated plan. I know that politicians love the word "co-ordinate", but it is important. When I went to the small island of Yell to see what could be done for it, I found

there at least a dozen separate authorities who were trying to deal with the question of rehabilitation. None of them has any money, very few have power and not all have expert personnel, but there are a dozen or more of them. This is nonsense, and unprofessional. We will never develop Scotland until this is put right.
Let us consider the question of transport. Dr. Beeching is said to be considering the closure of railway services in Scotland. Is anyone at the same time considering the planning of regions in which lines are to be closed? Is there any co-ordination between the attempt to drive industry to the far north of Scotland and Dr. Beeching's plans to close railway lines? If such co-ordination can be created it will provide a framework of planning, which is what Scotland lacks today.
Now for some suggestions about what could be done in the framework. My first two suggestions in this connection are short, and are in the form of questions. Why cannot the Government do the simple thing of sending more of the offices and institutions that they control out of London and up to Scotland? When I ask that question I am told that they have done a very good job, but we know that two buildings in London have been taken over for new offices. This is a simple thing, directly within the Government's control. Secondly, what are they doing to encourage further education and retraining in industry? If we are to have many people thrown out of work in the mines, the shale industry and transport, they will have to be retrained. Have the Government a scheme ready to do this?
I suggest that the Local Employment Act is not enough. It is too negative a Measure. We must have some positive inducement for industry to go to Scotland. It must be discriminatory. If we want it to go to Scotland we must either offer it some advantage or remove some disadvantage, which is discrimination. I want to see more positive steps taken. One step would be to consider giving some fiscal advantages to industry in Scotland.
The inducements that we offer must be fair between firm and firm. One of the objections to the Local Employment Act is that an established firm may not be eligible for assistance because


it will not provide any more employment. But if it does not receive assistance it may actually pay men off. If we provide fiscal advantages we can be fairer as between one firm and another. The inducements can take various forms. One form which should be examined is the encouragement of investment in Scotland.
Here again, the Government could do something directly. They could increase investment in the public sector in Scotland. In point of fact it has gone up hardly at all in the last three years. It amounted to £194 million in 1959, and £196 million in both the successive years. That figure could be directly increased by the Government. They could also encourage investment in the private sector by increasing the investment allowances in Scotland—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman state his attitude to the direction of labour in industry? If it is right to direct miners to Yorkshire I should like to know whether it is wrong to direct people in industry in Scotland.

Mr. Grimond: I do not want to speak for too long. I am not in favour of the direction of industry.

Mr. Cyril Bence: But the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of the direction of people.

Mr. Grimond: No, I am not. I am arguing in favour of giving fiscal advantages to firms in Scotland. The position is that the investment in the public sector is £196 million. In the manufacturing sector investment is running at about £113 million and, if my figures are right, the total overall investment in Scotland is about £480 million.
While Scotland is investing her proportion of the United Kingdom total in the civil public sector she seems to be lagging slightly in the private sector which is where, primarily, we need investment. Whatever we may think of the position of Scotland vis-à-vis the United Kingdom, she does not show up very well in comparison with foreign countries. Allowing for the difference in population, the rate of investment in Denmark seems much the same. But Norway, a much poorer country with a

population of only 3½ million, is investing about £447 million compared with the total in Scotland which is not much more. Sweden, with a population of 7½ million, is investing £960 million, and Switzerland, with a population which is very much the same as that of Scotland, is investing £651 million.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that if we are to get more jobs in Scotland, investment is important. The creation of business confidence is important. We cannot congratulate this Government on their efforts to instil confidence in the country, but they could do something directly to encourage investment in Scotland by giving higher investment allowances there than in prosperous parts of England.
If we are talking seriously about inducing industry to come to Scotland, we must consider the question of making some fiscal difference and I suggest that this is one method which might be examined. It would fit in with what is said in paragraph 17 of the memorandum from the Scottish Council where the Council point to the need for increased factory building. These are three suggestions. There are many more. But I think the time has come when it is the business of this House to make positive suggestions. I find it astonishing that the Government have made no suggestions of their own. They have picked up a few from the Toothill Committee and from here and there. But I have yet to hear one suggestion from the Government—and they have been in office for 11 years.
As I say, we are agreed that the Scottish situation today causes us great concern. Apart from unemployment, there is occurring the break-up of communities and continuing depopulation. If we cannot get some action taken, both in respect of the targets which have to be achieved and the methods and policies to be pursued, the decline in Scotland may become even faster than it is today.

5.53 p.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: The House has listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I find myself in agreement with several of the things he said, most of all about the need for positive action,


and I hope to deal with those points later. I should like to join with other hon. Members in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on his accomplished performance at the Dispatch Box and I wish to do so both as a neighbour and as one of his constituents. I should also like to wish him luck—

Mr. Rankin: He will need it.

Sir F. Maclean: —in the very arduous task which lies before him. We have had some experience of my right hon. Friend as a Government Whip and I hope that he will use the firmness and determination which he showed in that capacity not only in dealing with hon. Gentlemen opposite, but also in fighting for Scotland's interests with his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet. It is very important that the Secretary of State for Scotland should do that.
In common with other hon. Members, I should like to remember my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay), who has earned the friendship of everyone in this House by his kindness and the considerate way in which he has dealt with our various problems. We should not forget the great projects for which he was responsible and which are already beginning to bear fruit. I am confident that they will go on to bear more fruit. As was said by the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West certainly laid the foundations, very sound foundations, on which he himself can build.
I was glad to hear that the Secretary of State recognises the serious nature of the present crisis, because, of course, crisis it is. It is a crisis which has got worse in recent months. I was also glad to hear him repeat the oft-repeated pledge of his predecessor not to rest until the rate of unemployment in Scot-land had been reduced to something nearer the British average.
I wish to illustrate some of the points I propose to make by reference to the state of affairs in my own constituency, in particular in North Ayrshire. I make no apology for doing so because I think there is a certain merit in dealing in concrete and actual examples, and also because I think that many considerations which apply to my constituency apply

also to Scotland as a whole. The present employment situation in North Ayrshire is typical. It is bad and it is getting worse. It is aggravated by all kinds of factors which are the fault of no one in particular, such as the automation introduced by I.C.I. and the approaching completion of the Hunters-ton nuclear power station, and it will be affected indirectly by pit closures and by rail closures.
I have always been among the first to recognise the limited powers of the Government in these matters. There is a limit to what they can do, and I think that the Leader of the Opposition made that quite clear when he said—it is an opinion that is not shared by all his hon. Friends—that there should be no question of the direction of industry or of the direction of labour, but even so —

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Mr. Emrys Hughes rose—

Sir F. Maclean: —even though the Government's powers are limited, and although their responsibilities, therefore, are also limited, there is a lot which they could do. It is that which I wish to talk about tonight.
I have always believed that the situation calls for co-operation by all the parties concerned. To revert once again to my constituency, there we have a first-class labour force and very good employers. I would mention only I.C.I. I think everyone would agree that I.C.I. is an excellent employer. As a further example of enlightened private enterprise I would mention the recent purchase of the dockyard at Ardrossan. If that can be made a success of it may well do a very great deal to improve the local employment situation. We have good labour, good employers and a very good industrial relations record. We also have good communications and a good site.
In addition, I have always thought that it is very important for local authorities to make their contribution. In my constituency the local authorities and the trades councils in Saltcoats, Ardrossan, Stevenston and Kilwinning, which is not in my constituency, have got together and formed a Joint Industrial Committee which is taking active steps to publicise the facilities which we offer and make known all over the


world what North Ayrshire can offer in the way of industrial facilities.
I have shown that we have labour and good employers. I have shown that the local authorities are playing their part. Now, what can the Government do? There are a number of ways in which they can help. In Scotland as a whole we do not get our proper share of research and development. We should get that. I also think that the Government could bring more Government installations and Departments to Scotland, and I should like, without being selfish, to see some of them come to my own constituency.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Direct them.

Sir F. Maclean: The Government are in a position to direct their own Departments, even under our system.

Mr. William Ross: How many Government establishments in Scotland were closed while the hon. Member was a member of the Government and represented an English constituency?

Sir F. Maclean: There are one or two in my present constituency which I think could be put to better use and one just outside my constituency which from being a War Department depôt has been turned into a very good industrial estate. That is just what I urge my right hon. Friend to do more of. So the Department with which I was once connected does not come out of it too badly.
The Government's principal instrument of policy in all this is the Local Employment Act. I have supported that Act. I still think that, properly used, it could do much good. What is required is a much more vigorous application of it. I think that the deterrents and inducements which the Act provides should be strengthened and used more vigorously. I also think, as the Scottish Council has suggested, that there should be "a much clearer prior definition of inducements". When I was recently in the United States, I had occasion to see what other countries do by way of attracting industry. One of the things that other countries on the look out for new industry do is make it abundantly clear exactly what they can offer. They do that quickly. They will tell any firm

which applies exactly what it can expect and how soon. We take a very long time indeed. I hope that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will bear this necessity in mind. It is very important to speed up the procedure.
The situation is so critical, and has been so critical for so long, that I am inclined to agree with the Leader of the Liberal Party that the Government should think about using fiscal inducements. Tax remissions are a very strong bait to a new industry. I wonder if something of that kind can be used in Scotland. The Government should at least think about it.
Finally, I want to say something about the problem of advance factories. I have always been inclined to accept the official view of the Government, or what has been the Government's official view up to now, namely, that it is much better to build factories specially to the specification of an industrialist coming to the area. Only the other day I had occasion to write to my right hon. Friend about an American firm which was thinking of coming to Scotland. I suggested that the firm should be sent to visit my constituency. I received the reply that it was not even worthwhile for the firm to visit North Ayrshire because there were "no existing premises" there. That makes me wonder whether we ought to have existing premises in North Ayrshire. That was one reason given. The other reason given by the then Parliamentary Secretary was that the firm could not be
sure enough of being able to get the labour it needed in the area, after taking into account the prospective needs of other undertakings already established or under construction in the area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1962; Vol. 662, c. 259.]
That does not make sense, because surely my right hon. Friend knows the rate at which unemployment is running in North Ayrshire at present. What matters is the fact that there are men unemployed now, not the fact that a firm may conceivably find itself short of labour in a year or two.
That brings me back to the question of advance factories. I suspect that the reason why firms prefer any old advance factory, even if it does not exactly suit them, is that they believe that if they


have one built for them by the Government years will elapse before it is ready and by then the situation may be changed altogether. I can quite understand their point of view.
It is true that under the working of the Local Employment Act Scotland has a fair share of benefits, but viewed from the narrow viewpoint of my own constituency—and that is how I am inclined to view it—the working of the Act has been very disappointing. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend in replying will be able to hold out some hope of speeding up the working of the Act and also of giving it teeth and making it really work.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) referred to what he called the accomplished performance of the Secretary of State for Scotland. In my view, it was a disastrous debut. It was unfortunate for him that he had to go in at the deep end, as it were, and talk about something in which hitherto he has taken very little interest. He treated us to a speech carefully prepared by his advisers—a non-committal speech, telling us nothing, promising us nothing, giving us no hope whatever.
It is clear that today the Scottish economy is in the throes of a very painful industrial transition and, however carefully we plan that transition, there will be hardship. That is all the more reason for planning adequately. The Secretary of State is unfortunate in that he was the result for us of an extremely hasty, ruthless and bloody purge at the top. I take the view that it is no use shuffling a dog-eared pack when all the cards are marked even though the shuffling is done by the biggest cardsharper we have got.
That is how I approach this question of the Scottish economy today. The Prime Minister is responsible, and it is the Prime Minister who ought to be in the dock today. He does not even bother to come to listen to his new recruit. If he had, he would have fired him tomorrow. What does the Prime Minister do? Occasionally he visits Scotland. He was there a few months ago, not to see the Scottish T.U.C., not to see anybody who is intimately concerned with Scottish problems, but to

see Jack Cotton and Mr. Clore and Sir Hugh Fraser. That was the object of his visit, not to discuss the problems which we are discussing today, but to discuss the means of replenishing the Tory Party coffers, and at public expense, too. But not all the Cottons and not all the Clores and not all the Frasers can save the Tory Party from being wiped out in Scotland at the next election. The more am I convinced of that after having listened to the speech of the Secretary of State this afternoon.
Whatever abilities the right hon. Gentleman has have been carefully concealed from the House since he came here. What are his qualifications for the job? He is a landowner; he was educated at Eton; and he grows rhododendrons. It will be interesting to hear from him in the future, he is in an industry very heavily subsidised with Government money, defending the Government's policy of getting the nationalised industries on to a sound financial basis and paying their way.
I can appreciate the Prime Minister's difficulties in making his extremely limited choice. He is in the position of the fellow who tried to make bricks without straw. The doctrine seems to be, "If you cannot appoint a relation, appoint somebody from Eton." The Secretary of State's predecessor was also a product of Eton.

Mr. John Maclay: No, Winchester.

Mr. Hamilton: I beg his pardon. I had the wrong English public school. With the greatest respect to the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay)—and I bear him no ill will as a person—his tenure of office was a disaster for Scotland. He is a likeable fallow. He should have gone into the Church, or perhaps the Liberal Party.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: He was in the Liberal Party.

Mr. Hamilton: I know exactly what his political antecedents were, but we will not go into those. He always gave me the impression, and I think the country, of being either unable or unwilling to fight within the Cabinet for the special claims of Scotland, for differential and


preferential treatment. As the Scotsman said last Friday:
A mistake the Government are making is that they are treating Scotland as a region of the United Kingdom whose problems call for exactly the same treatment as, say, those of Northern England. They are not making sufficient allowance for the fact that Scotland is a distinct nation and that there is a limit to the extent to which the Scottish people will allow their economy to be damaged.
This is the Tory Scotsman which went on:
The Government should regard Scotland as presenting them with an opportunity of demonstrating the virility of Conservatism.
Virility of Conservatism!

Mr. James Dempsey: (Coatbridge and Airdrie): Senility.

Mr. Hamilton: It is like expecting virility from a eunuch. Eleven years of this virility have resulted in an increase in monthly unemployment from 54,700 in April, 1951, under a Labour Government, to 79,000 in April, 1962, very nearly a 50 per cent. increase under the present Government. There has been an increase in industrial production of rather less than 2 per cent. per annum and an annual average of only 1 per cent. for the last six years.
Taking 1954 as a base year, the Scottish economy has expanded at only half the rate of a very slowly expanding United Kingdom economy. It is this stagnation, or comparative stagnation, plus the green light for the unfettered oil competition, which has led to the great problems which the coal industry is now facing. It is not without significance that the same pressure group which has allowed oil to overtake coal in many respects has been operating to get the Pipe-lines Bill through the House with unseemly haste, and that almost all the advisers of the Government on this issue are people who have had connections with big oil firms.
The latest blow was last Wednesday's announcement, in my view a calculated attempt to conceal the facts rather than inform the House. It was very apt that that statement should have been made as the last major statement of the outgoing Secretary of State. It was the final act of humiliation for him. There was then a glorious opportunity for him to refuse to make that statement. It should properly have been made by the

Minister of Power. The right hon. Member for Renfrew, West ought to have taken the opportunity then to resign. That would have been the greatest blow he could have struck as the last blow he would strike in the office of Secretary of State.
That statement was the direct consequence of the economic stagnation which I have been talking about, the refusal to establish a national fuel policy. The policy adumbrated in the Government's White Paper on the Financial and Economic Obligations of the Nationalised Industries, published in April of last year, made no mention of social obligations. Both Lord Robens of the National Coal Board and Dr. Beeching have quite rightly said that the social consequences flowing from the implementation of the policies in that White Paper must be the responsibility of the Government.
So obsessed are the Tory Government with the importance of the £ s. d. yardstick, that they completely ignore the possible social consequences of attempting to make the nationalised industries pay their way within five years. Again to quote the ultra-Tory Scotsman of Thursday, 12th July:
The conclusion seems inescapable that the Government gave insufficient thought to the consequences of their policy, and that the White Paper should have been supported by vigorous and effective measures to create jobs for workers displaced. It was then, not now, that special action should have been taken.
What is the special action which is to be taken even now? We had a statement about what is to happen to Donibristle. This is two or three years too late. It is at least two years since Fife County Council and I were agitating for the Board of Trade to take it over. The writing was then on the wall about the future of the mining industry in Fife.
Take the question of the increased training allowances. These will not be applicable only to Scotland; they will be applicable throughout the country. There is to be no different treatment in Scotland. In any case, what help will this be to a man in the pit aged 50 or 55, who is to be thrown on the scrap heap? He cannot be trained for another job and he cannot easily move home to another part of the country. What about those going to England? Some of my constituents have been going to work


in the coal mines in England. They have to wait eighteen months or two years for a house. They have to suffer a considerable reducation in wages because they do not get jobs at the coal face in the English pits.
There is no evidence whatever that the Government are aware of these problems. There is no attempt as far as I know to collect detailed data on these things. The brutal truth is that the Government do not very much care about it. The workers are simply pawns on a capitalist board to be moved from one place to another.
The Government do not direct industry, but they direct the men. The Government protest that this is not true. We can see thorn giving disapproving glances. I am always delighted when I see that because I know that probably I am on the right lines. They say that they have provided more new jobs in the last two years than the number that have been lost. The ex-Secretary of State went very much further last Wednesday. He said, as reported in column 1349 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for that day, that there had been a net gain of about 30,000 new jobs in the last two years. That is not true.

Mr. Maclay: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member because I have sworn not to speak this afternoon, but he must not misquote me. If he will look carefully he will find that I said it was from 1959 to 1961.

Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Member said there had been a net gain of 30,000 new jobs in the last two years. I shall come to that figure in a moment and show how it is not true. Even if it were it has been drawn largely by getting the major motor car expansions, which in any case are not likely to be repeated for many years. Indeed this is the peak.
I got the facts in answer to a Question on 21st May. I shall not quote them except to say that between 1959 and 1961, according to those figures, the number of jobs lost was 46,150 and the estimated gain was 42,600. These are the years that the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West was worried about. In the first two years of the operation of the Local Employment Act, Scotland, with an average of 204 per cent. of all the unemployment in Britain, got 11·9 per cent. of the new jobs. Look

at the other figures for the rest of the United Kingdom. England, where there was 72·4 per cent. of unemployment, got 79·7 per cent. of new jobs. Wales with 7·2 per cent. unemployment got 8·4 per cent. of the new jobs.
Look at the regions. I am referring to the Board of Trade, not the Ministry of Labour regions. The Eastern Region of England had 4·3 per cent. unemployment and got 12·1 per cent. of the new jobs. The North Midland Region had 4·5 per cent. of unemployment and got 7·2 per cent. of new jobs. The Southwestern Region had 5·4 per cent. unemployment and 7·9 per cent. of the new jobs. Even London and the South-Eastern Region with 15·4 per cent. of the total unemployment had 11·8 per cent. of the new jobs. London and the South-East got as big a proportion of the new jobs provided since the inauguration of the Local Employment Act as Scotland did with very much less of the total unemployment.
That is the result of the Local Employment Act. All the regions I have quoted got a bigger proportion of the new jobs than their percentage of unemployment warranted. These figures do not include the I.D.C.s granted before April, 1960. For example, the B.M.C. which the Government talk about as being the product of the Local Employment Act was nothing of the kind because the I.D.C. was issued before the operation of the Local Employment Act. In any case, in the first six months of this year another 13,400 have been declared redundant in Scotland, the greatest in any region.
The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have no cause to congratulate themselves on the "enormous success" of the Local Employment Act. At the very best we have stood still. This is no consolation for Fife, especially central West Fife. I do not want to quote the mass of figures I have—they are only too well known—but I will refer to one village, Kelty, about which I asked at Question Time this afternoon. There is the Aitken pit, with 890 men in it, scheduled for closure in 1963. There is the Lindsay with 800 men, scheduled to close in 1964. There are 1,700 men in one village and not a single job for them. They have a betting shop, but there is no industry at all.
If we look at the B and C lists we find that the total number involved in central West Fife is about 8,000 men. If we add their wives and families there are 30,000 people. Imagine them marching in protest four abreast and a yard between them. That would be a column four miles long, a column of worry and fear, bitterness and anger—anger against a Government which cares more for £ s. d. than men, women and children, a Government which shrinks from the direction of industry but positively relishes the idea of directing labour. Fife County Council has legitimate grounds for complaint because it has invested £17 million in houses, in schools, in roads and so on, based on plans put to it by the National Coal Board in conjunction with the Government. Unless something is done to bring industry to that area I fear that this social capital will be of no avail.
I shall enumerate what can be done. First, the Government have to recognise much more than they have up to now the complete inadequacy of their existing policies. Secondly, there has to be a national fuel policy based on a highly efficient coal industry financially reorganised. If the right hon. Gentleman can defend subsidies for farmers, I can defend them to a nationalised industry.
Thirdly, there must be an overall policy of expansion, not just as a pre-election gimmick or stunt. As the Guardian very cynically said on Monday, 16th July in its City column:
It is natural to assume that the Prime Minister has cleared the decks for the next boom—and the next Election.
Fourthly, we want a special regional policy for Scotland based on much more detailed statistics than we have today, comparative costs data and things of that kind. We also want major changes in budgetary policy and a regional differential payroll tax, thus increasing the cost advantage of location in Scotland. I also suggested in a Question today that there should be regional variation in the National Insurance employers' contributions, which would, again, be a means of differentiating in favour of Scotland in labour costs.
Other points put by other hon. and right hon. Members were that there should be more Government finance and

research and, last but not least, that Scotland has a natural claim for the direction of industry. I believe that the only kind of industry that we can direct in a practical way is State-owned industry, and that is why I want more State-owned industry. We have had examples put forward recently. We have heard much adverse comment in the Press about privately manufactured drugs used in the Health Service and being put on the market which have resulted in deformed children. Why cannot the National Health Service produce its own drugs? Why cannot we have a nationally-owned drug industry in Scotland? Why cannot we have the production of all the bed linen and hospital requisites publicly owned and controlled? We could direct these in Scotland and have regard in that direction to the social consequences and implications. These are the things that need to be done, but the Government will not do them.
I could say the same about school equipment. Here we have a State enterprise. The educational system is basically State-owned and controlled and basically State-financed. Why cannot we manufacture and produce the furniture and all the school equipment in State-owned and controlled industries, and put them in the Highlands and in other areas where there are pockets of unemployment? The Government will not do that.
The Government, whose name is associated with betting shops, bingo halls, strip-tease, Premium Bonds and commercial television, are not concerned with the things that I have been talking about. The sooner they go the better.

Mr. Maclay: May I make this absolutely clear? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read HANSARD more accurately in future and not use figures quoted by me without getting them correct.

Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well—and I challenge him to deny it—that he said that there had been a net increase of 30,000 jobs in the last two years.

Mr. Maclay: This is a small point, but it is a question of accuracy. I am quoting from HANSARD:
In two years, from 1959 to 1961, there was a net gain of about 30,000 jobs in Scotland."—


[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1962; Vol. 662. c. 1349.]

Mr. Hamilton: I was not challenging the statement; I was saying it was not true.

Mr. Maclay: The whole point is that it was made very clear that the year 1961–62 was not a good year.

Mr. Hamilton: If that is the case, the right hon. Gentleman was deliberately deluding the House.

6.45 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: As an old Etonian and a grower of rhododendrons, I have the greatest pleasure in disassociating myself from the remarks of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think also that several hon. and right hon. Members have been a little unfair on him today because, within a very few hours of his taking up the office of Secretary of State, he announced that he was going to continue this measure of industrial derating which at a time when Scotland is fighting for jobs is obviously of great importance to the industrial development of Scotland. I am certain that it is right that he should not, in the first few days of his office, start off with a lot of promises before he could possibly have had a chance to assess what it was possible for him to do.
The hon. Member for Fife, West shares with me the honour of representing the County of Fife. I know how worried everyone is in that county. I know what difficulties there are to overcome, but it is fair, I think, to record the progress which is being made in the town of Glenrothes, the plans for Donibristle and the private enterprise new town of Dalgetty, the details of which were in the newspapers only a few days ago.
I should like to return to the tenor of the debate set by the Leader of the Opposition, when he opened it today, on the question of taking a tougher policy with industrial development certificates. Yesterday there appeared in The Times a graph showing what was happening. There is no doubt that the bias was going definitely to the south-east of the country, and it is still going there. The Secretary of State gave details of the jobs that it has been possible to provide

in Scotland in spite of the fall off in other industries, and very many of these have come from the expansion of existing industries, however great a part the new industries have played. That is what is happening all over the country. Nothing succeeds like success. Somebody starts a business and it prospers. One cannot suddenly stop it, pick part of it up and take it away. It must be within the ingenuity of the Secretary of State in conjunction with the President of the Board of Trade to try to arrive at some solution different from the present method of issuing industrial development certificates.
Many hon. Members today have mentioned the Toothill Report. In one paragraph the Committee wondered whether, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, we had exactly the right set-up in Scottish administration. Would it not perhaps be better to have a Scottish Undersecretary of State at the Board of Trade rather than an Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office Who is responsible for trade and industry? I hope that some change to try to help Scotland in this way may be made in the months ahead.
However keen we are on the immediate solution of the difficulties, which I am sure are being well looked after, I should like to say something about the longer term so far as it may help to improve conditions in Scotland. I refer to the timber trade. When the Forestry Commission started planting after the First World War it was very much with the idea of having a strategic reserve of timber, but in the nuclear age that same need is not there. On the other hand, we imported last year £176 million worth of timber and £117 million worth of pulp and waste paper. Soft wood consumption has risen by 70 per cent. in the last 10 years. British-grown soft woods amount to 2·7 per cent. of the total consumption, half of which comes from private forests and half from the Forestry Commission, but the Forestry Commission's proportion will increase as the plantings of the 'twenties come to maturity.
I know that the Secretary of State will have a real interest in the possible establishment of the pulp mill at Fort William. Of course, the coal pit closures and the cutting down of the amount of


timber used in the mining industry highlights the need to find new outlets for Scottish timber. To do this, I think that we need a further review of how we can co-ordinate forestry and agriculture. I am certain that it may well be in the interests of Scotland as a whole if forestry and agriculture are put under one control. In Scotland we have only 8·3 per cent. of our land area covered by trees, and the proportion for the country as a whole is about 7 per cent. A large part of Scotland is mountain and moor. I have walked over many of the hills of Scotland and seen in many places the relics of forests which have now gone.
There is today a competition between agriculture and forestry. I suggest that this could be ended by having both under one control. In this way, we could ensure that the drift away from the Highlands and Islands was stopped. I live in the Lowlands and I know the problems there, but I know also that every time someone leaves a glen in the Highlands a job is lost for someone in the Lowlands. If we are to build up the Scottish economy, we must be prepared to look at not only what happens in the industrial belt, though that is a big problem on its own, but also to the future everywhere and plan to keep more people on the land. As a result of mechanisation, agriculture will employ fewer people as time goes on. Forestry offers the best opportunity.
Last summer, I went to Norway and saw people living there in communities far more removed from civilisation than anything we have in Scotland save, perhaps, in the very remote outer islands. The Norwegians have a co-ordination between fishing and forestry. Would it not be possible to lease to farmers and crofters sections of the Forestry Commission's land which they could work under direction so that, instead of having to bring in squards of men to do a particular operation, we could keep people permanently resident on the land who would be doing the work in these forests but under the supervision of qualified forestry experts? This is the sort of thing that is done in the Scandinavian countries, probably under private ownership, but in this country the resident people, fishermen and crofters,

could help in the maintenance of our State forests.
If the total forest area were increased and if forestry and agriculture were put under one control, this would give great help in setting the economy of Scotland on a sounder basis in the longer term. In the meantime there are many short-term things to do to which, I am certain, the Secretary of State will apply his mind. On both sides of the House, I believe, we wish him the very best in his endeavours.

6.42 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) is a landowner, an old Etonian and a grower of rhododendrons, and he also makes speeches very like that which the present Secretary of State made from the back benches on one occasion during a Scottish debate several years ago. The right hon. Gentleman's one and only contribution—I am sorry he is not here at the moment—was to advocate from the back benches in a seven-minute speech—very commendable—the direction of pulp and chip mills to the Highlands and a speeding up of the D.A.T.A.C. procedure. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, being now Secretary of State and a prisoner of those promises, is bound to see that they are carried out.
However, this in itself will not solve the problem. In one way, I am glad that there has been a change in Secretaries of State because I believe that the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) has, if I may say so without disrespect, become the prisoner of his own past speeches. I hope that the new Secretary of State will tell his Under-Secretaries that the language of the past few years is now forbidden. From what the Secretary of State said today and the tenor of his remarks, although he promised us nothing, it seems that we are not to have the same old touch and the same old arguments, the hope of sunshine coming along soon without any clouds in the sky if only we will bide our time.
During the past few weeks, a kind of cemetery of Tory arguments has been built. Only a few months ago, the Under-Secretary of State who is at present on the Front Bench gave us the old "black spot" argument. Greenock is a


well-known black spot in Scotland. I have become sick and tired of hearing the black spot theory and I am glad that it has now gone. The idea was that all one had to do was to pick on an area, add up the number of unemployed, produce a pipeline to match it, and then everything would be all right. To my great surprise, the former Secretary of State once told me in a debate that he had solved Greenock's unemployment problem, at least on paper. I prophesy tonight that if I interrupt the President of the Board of Trade he will throw back at me the argument that because there is a graving dock being built on the Clyde Greenock's unemployment problems are solved.
This is the unhappy feature of our situation. Having done certain things, the Government assume prematurely that all is well. The Clyde graving dock is being built. We are told that because it may produce in five years—there are arguments about it—about 600 jobs direct and, perhaps, 1,200 jobs on the Clyde river itself for ship repairing, all the local problems of Greenock and the neighbouring towns represented by the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West, the former Secretary of State, are solved. It is just nonsense. In any case, it is no argument for saying that we must wait for five years until the dock is built and allow unemployment to continue at its present level during all that time.
If one looks at the returns of the Registrar-General not in relation to Scotland as a whole—those are bad enough—but in relation to certain communities in Scotland, one sees that in the towns which are waiting for a solution to their unemployment difficulties the best skilled labour—the young people—is being driven away by the reality or threat of unemployment. This is the sadness of it. In spite of the British Hydrocarbon factory at Grange-mouth and all we were told about the B.M.C. factory at Bathgate, the problems are still there. One thing I learned from my short experience in West Lothian helping my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in his campaign was that the coming of the B.M.C. has not been a complete answer to the problems there. Looking further up from Greenock to Linwood, we are told that the arrival of the Rootes factory

will solve all the difficulties of the County of Renfrew. On the record of experience at Bathgate, this is just not true. The Government so far are failing to attract the industries ancillary and subsidiary to these large factories to Scotland. They ought to be large industrial complexes attracting more industries and more jobs than the main factories themselves represent.
In my constituency we have had one factory of 22,000 sq. ft. lying empty for nine months without a single firm having been enticed to come and take up occupation. It is incredibly difficult to believe that there is not some industry in the Midlands which would want to feed the Rootes factory at Linwood with its necessary materials for production which would not come and settle there if it were shown all the attractions of the area. What has happened? All the components for Bathgate are still brought up from the South. It was one of the arguments for settling the firm there that there would be subsidiary enterprises nearby to supply the factory. Is this a General Election illusion from which we have suffered all these years? Will not these places be growth points of Scottish industry?
I want an assurance from the new Secretary of State that he will regard it as one of his highest priorities to be at the Board of Trade as often as he can to remind the Board of Trade that it must make the necessary efforts. It is not for local town councillors, Members of Parliament or deputations of businessmen to be left to do it unaided. Officials of the Board of Trade and Ministers of the Board of Trade are responsible for going to all the firms in the Midlands and telling them of the advantages which are to be obtained by going to settle in Scotland.

Mr. John Brewis: Is the hon. Gentleman being quite fair? The Report points out that there ware four projects in Greenock and Port Glasgow in 1961 providing just under 700 new jobs and that two further projects are under construction.

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman must look at the unemployment figures in Greenock and the level of migration. Then he will not be quite so content with what might appear at first sight


from the Report. I once challenged the Under-Secretary of State to publish a report not of jobs in the pipeline but of jobs which had been created. We have only just begun to have these details. Some of the figures can be immensely misleading, as I know very well.
A firm in my constituency was given an I.D.C. to make a certain extension which was to provide 700 jobs. When the extension was made, the firm recruited 50 new employees. I welcomed this, of course, but within three months the industrial labour force at that factory had fallen by 50. I do not blame the firm concerned. But such records of 700 new jobs being created is often just nonsense. We really must look at the thing more closely in terms of reality rather than what has been promised or what appears in the statistics of I.D.C. estimates.
As I say, in Greenock, there has been this complacent argument that we have the Clyde graving dock. I hope that we shall not hoar it any more. It is said that because it represents 1,200 jobs it is a solution of the local unemployment problem. I hope that we shall not be told that because one factory moves from one place to another and creates a certain large number of jobs there is a net gain of that number. I want no more cheating in the books. We have had enough of that.
It is very difficult for hon. Members to get at all the facts and figures because they are very cleverly arranged in Command Papers, Ministerial statements and Board of Trade letters. However, once one gets to the bottom of it, it is astonishing to find how we have been deceived by Government claims. It is still true that in Greenock we have 7 per cent. unemployment. We have had this figure of unemployment for many years —for as many years as hon. Members opposite have been in power.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says about cheating in the books. Perhaps he would like to have an argument with the Leader of the Liberal Party who asked us to give estimates. If a project goes forward at an estimated level of employment which is not met, we cannot be accused of cheating.

Dr. Mabon: That is a most unreasonable intervention, and I do not propose to answer it. The real answer to the question of whether the industrial and unemployment problems of Scotland have been solved is to find out the rate of industrial growth and the number of people in employment in Scotland. When one has done that, that, to my mind, is an end of the argument. I hope that we are finished with this argument about the so-called black spots and that people will realise that the industrial potential of Scotland as a whole must be widened.
The hon. Member for Fife, East said that nothing succeeds like success. I take his point further and say that nothing succeeds like excess. It is unreasonable to say about the Grange-mouth area, as the Board of Trade once said in a letter, that the reason why there were not more subsidiary industries there was that the Board of Trade was most anxious to deal with other areas of high and persistent unemployment scheduled under the Local Employment Act. What a silly argument. The Board of Trade has conceded that it is a silly argument and is now willing to encourage industries to go to the Grangemouth area. I should have preferred to see the whole of Scotland declared a development area including the Highland area as a whole and given adequate nation-wide assistance under the Act.
I now return to the other point of the Secretary of State. He complained as a back bencher that there were many delays in the work of D.A.T.A.C, which is now B.O.T.A.C Not long ago, the managing director of a small firm, not in my constituency, applied on behalf of his firm to BO.T.A.C. for assistance. After fourteen months the Board of Trade said that it could not give him the loan for which he was asking primarily because he did not have enough money to invest further in the firm. He contacted me. I do not wish to expose his personal affairs to public gaze, but he did this to the Board of Trade. His house was mortgaged and everything possible was put into this business, which on every other account was a good investment. It seems to me that B.O.T.A.C. adopted a narrow attitude in this case. I hope that under the present Secretary of State and by constant nudging of the Board of Trade there will be better consideration and fewer delays between the time


when applications are received and the time that they are assessed and a final decision made.
Many business men, in fact, have been asking, "Where can I find an empty factory? What are the advantages that the Government can give me for settling in this area?" They are asking for bribes or inducements to go to certain areas. I am not against giving them bribes. In fact, I am all for giving them very hefty bribes provided that in the long run they settle down and stay in the area and then pay back the bribe.
One first-class large firm in my constituency, International Business Machines, was induced to come to Greenock in two ways. It was given the pick of the available land in Greenock—and, Mr. Speaker, if you know the topography you will know that that was quite a sacrifice—and it was given a tailor-made factory on splendid rental terms. This concern went to Greenock and settled down. It has decided to stay there and to buy its own factory and to pay back the assistance which came from the taxpayers. With the world being as sinful as it is, I am in favour of bribing private enterprise to do this. I am only sorry that the Government are not willing to do more of it.
A great deal can be done to attract private industry to Scotland, but it will not go there for patriotic or philanthropic reasons. Some of the suggestions made my a number of my hon. Friends today have been quite admirable in the matter of preferences for investment and plant and in the running of firms. This is a matter on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be asked to take action.
In July, 1960, we were told in a Press statement, which was supposed to be a "leak" from the Scottish Office, that the Secretary of State was arguing for entirely different treatment for Scotland under the July emergency measures of that year. It was said that Scotland would not suffer by a curtailment of its public investment programme. I thought that after four years in office the Secretary of State had learned what had to be done and was about to secure a great triumph. But it never came. The Scottish house-building, hospital-build-

ing and school-building programmes and Scottish public investment generally were chopped just as ruthlessly as the English programmes, without any distinction. I suggest that Scotland does not deserve this kind of treatment. We must have entirely different treatment from the Treasury. Scotland is not a part of the United Kingdom in that respect.
I appeal to the new Secretary of State to try to sweep away the cobwebs of the past and to ginger up his Under-Secretaries of State and make them realise that they must not make complacent speeches. He must go forward with the Local Employment Act, but, above all, he must seize on some of the new ideas which we have thrust upon him so that Scotland may at least be given a Chance in the years ahead.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. John Brewis: The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Diekson Mabon) had many interesting things to say. I am much inclined to agree with what he said about the Treasury. I hope to take up some of the points which he made later in my speech. However, I point out to him that I have higher unemployment in one place in my constituency than even he has in Greenock.

Mr. Dempsey: What is the percentage?

Mr. Brewis: Over 8 per cent.
The Leader of the Opposition made an interesting speech. It may have disappointed some hon. Members opposite in that in his article in one of the Glasgow newspapers he mentioned that Labour's policies of public ownership had a big rôle to play. We heard very little about this in his speech this afternoon. Recently, the right hon. Gentleman cast his bread on the waters at Middlesbrough, East and said that he would not nationalise I.C.I. This came back before many days were past in the form of floating votes, as we all know. Similarly today, the right hon. Gentleman was not in favour of the direction of industry, which is one of the policies of the Scottish Trades Union Council and of several hon. Members opposite. In effect, what the right hon. Gentleman said came down to a tougher I.D.C. policy and greater inducements.
Appendix 38 of the Toothill Report gives some interesting figures about


what has been spent under the distribution of industry and local employment policy. From 1945 to 1960, £7·8 million was spent, which is equal to about £500,000 a year. From 1960 to 1962, the figure had risen to £43·3 million, or £21 million—

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

7.0 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Acts of Parliament Numbering and Citation Act, 1962. (c. 34)
2. Shops (Airports) Act, 1962. (c. 35)
3. Local Authorities (Historic Buildings) Act, 1962. (c. 36)
4. Building Societies Act, 1962. (c. 37)
5. Town and Country Planning Act, 1962. (c. 38)
6. Drainage Rates Act, 1962. (c. 39)
7. Jamaica Independence Act, 1962. (c. 40)
8. Colonial Loans Act, 1962. (c. 41)
9. Law Reform (Damages and Solatium) (Scotland) Act, 1962. (c. 42)
10. Carriage by Air (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1962. (c. 43)
11. Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Brighouse) Act, 1962.
12. Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Doncaster) Act, 1962.
13. Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Sidmouth) Act, 1962.
14. Grimsby Corporation Act, 1962.
15. South Essex Waterworks Act, 1962.
16. Ship Mortgage Finance Company Act, 1962.

17. London County Council (Money) Act, 1962.
18. Manchester Corporation Act, 1962.
19. Runcorn District Water Board Act, 1962.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

Question again proposed, That "£7,078,200" stand part of the Resolution.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND (INDUSTRY AND EMPLOYMENT)

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Brewis: I was saying that the chief recommendation from hon. Members opposite has been a stronger industrial development certificates policy and greater inducements. Yet in the period from 1945 to 1960 £7·8 million or about £500,000 a year was spent on encouraging industry in Scotland, while in the last two years £43·3 million has been spent, equal to more than £21·6 million a year, or about 40 times as much as in each previous year since the end of the war. Therefore, I can hardly feel that Scotland has not been treated handsomely as regards the cash inducements handed out under the Local Employment Act.
In the last two years 81,000 jobs have been created, and we see from page 41 of the Report that the potential employment is equal to about 46 per cent. of the total of unemployed. But the trouble is that this is an entirely theoretical point. The real heartache of the position is that we are losing jobs so rapidly in the older industries, such as shipbuilding. But that is due mainly to the many ships which there are in the world and to points like flag discrimination. It is not due necessarily to inefficiency in the Scottish yards or even to lack of encouragement by the Government. As a result, steel has decreased its production slightly.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman complains about shipbuilding. Would she not agree that this gives the Conservative Government an opportunity to experiment with atomic-powered ships? I was horrified that not one Scottish Conservative Member took part in the science and industry debate when the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) outlined the argument for having an atomic-powered ship. That is the sort of thing which should be built on the Clyde.

Mr. Brewis: I cannot enter into the question of an atomic-powered ship. Before building it, one has to be sure that one has the right machinery. We have given numerous Admiralty orders to the Clyde.
With regard to coal pits, it is impossible for the Government to subsidise unwanted services and uneconomic activities. That would lead the country straight away into an economic crisis and would threaten the stability of the position of the whole country.
But today we have a new Secretary of State for Scotland. I congratulate him and hope that I shall not annoy him too much by anything I say. First, I would point out that he has to watch carefully that he gets full co-operation from his Cabinet colleagues. He has to deal with the considerable problem of our railways, a problem in which the Minister of Transport will need to help as much as he can. Also, looming over the housing problem is the problem of the fishing industry.
My right hon. Friend wild need cooperation to stem as far as possible this haemorrhage of depopulation which is pulling people away from Scotland. In what Professor Galbraith would call the old conventional wisdom, it used to be the laissez-faire argument that it was economic to let people go off to where work was to be found. We have to make a complete reappraisal of that idea.
In France it has been calculated that every family which leaves the country area and goes to live in Paris, which is a great magnet for the population of

France, costs about £3,000 in housing, waiter, drainage, land and the general infrastructure necessary for civilised living. When a family leaves an area, one has to put on the debit side what has been spent in that area on education and other services in the interest of the worker and his family.
The Scottish Office has considered many foreign countries, including Norway, but it might also look at one or two things which the French have done in Brittany. In 1954 a programme was started in Brittany, which is very much like Scotland in many ways, and is about 500 miles from Paris. At the time the survey was started it was at a fairly low ebb. There were practically no main roads, the roads were in bad repair, and the railway services were on two different gauges so that if one wanted to move goods from this part to Paris one bad to change trains.
Brittany now has its motor factory. Many hon. Members may have noticed in connection with Telstar that the best television pictures were picked up at Lannion, at Cape Finistere, which is about as far away as anywhere could be. It is interesting how the station came to be there. M. Pleven, the former Prime Minister of France, and a Deputy for Brittany, appointed the Surlaut Commission to go round the Paris area Looking at all the Government research stations situated there and deciding which could be moved into areas such as Brittany which needed more science and more research stations. As a result, the radio and telecommunications centre for France was moved to Lannion. Following that, Brittany now has Phillips (Electronics) Co. at Lannion, the Compagnie Generale de Telegraphic at Brest, the Alsacienne Radio and T.V. Co. at Maudeville, Frankel at St. Malo, the Thomson-Houston [Electronics] Co. at Laval, and many others.
This is something that we could well do in this country. However, I appreciate that it is beyond the initiative of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who would need the co-operation of the entire Cabinet. If one goes round the London area, to Teddington, Sunbury-on-Thames, Egham, Virginia Water, and so on, one finds many similar research stations which have no need to be in these congested areas. I cannot mention


any particular ones, except two about which I feed rather strongly. One is the Forestry Commission Research Station which is in Hampshire, and the Timber Research Station as Princes Risborough. In Scotland at the moment we have a bigger acreage under trees, but the research work that we are getting in Scotland is done by seven men and a dog somewhere near Edinburgh apart from the universities. I cannot see any reason why these research stations, should not go up to Edinburgh. The wives would be just as happy doing their shopping in Princes Street, Edinburgh, as in Regent Street, London. Why is it strategically necessary to keep the Army in the south of England? Why are Salisbury Plain and Aldershot so essential to the Army? Many of these Government Departments should exercise a sort of voluntary I.D.C. system in which the Departments see that their establishments can be spread about a little more.
I now want to say a word or two about the fifth university. I do not want to go into it on educational terms at all, but we must realise that a new university is equivalent to a major industry coming into a town. We all know that since the war England and Wales have had twelve new universities. Why on earth could not one of these twelve have been placed just over the border in places like Dumfries, to which both English and Scottish students could come, as well as Commonwealth students. I was particularly pleased to see the new development plan for Livingstone, which is on a much bigger scale, and which, in my opinion, would be a very good site for a university.
I am particularly pleased to see that the development plan is on the scale of a city, so that we can get the sort of city amenities and entertainments which people will want if they are to stay in Scotland. One thing which might be included in the Livingstone plan, and I believe the Board of Trade has power to do it, is the building of office blocks in order to get the commercial employment. Private enterprise development can do this and nearly always builds office blocks on an entirely speculative basis and manages to get away with it. I see no reason why we should not do exactly the same thing in the new town of Livingstone.
I should like now to speak about the inducements offered under the Local Employment Act for new industries to come in. On the whole, I think, they are adequate, but the building grant is particularly cumbersome. One has to get an assessor to look at the plans, decide what the value would be if the firm went out of business, as compared with the actual cost of the building, and then, by comparing these figures, the value of the building grant is arrived at. If one gets too much in the way of a building grant, then, obviously, this is the wrong type of factory to come into that area, because it would have such a small residual value if the firm should go bankrupt, and B.O.T.A.C. will tend to refuse money as a loan to equip the factory.
It would be very much better if the building grant were given on a flat percentage basis. The Toothill Report suggests 15 per cent., and the French complain that 20 per cent. is inadequate. I should like to see it at 25 per cent., without having the business of the assessor working out the value of the factory. If one is lucky enough to get Scottish Industrial Estates to build a factory to rent, the rent is quite low— from 2½ per cent. to 4 per cent. If the factory is built for one, and one has to buy it back over a period, the rate of interest at the moment is about 5½ per cent., repayable over ten years, which comes out at 13¼ per cent., which is a very great difference for a new company starting out, as compared with the 2½ per cent. in the case of renting a factory. It is far too big a difference, and, although one is buying the factory on hire purchase and it will become one's own at the end of ten years, one gets no building grant, which seems to me to be entirely illogical and a typical attempt at saving by the Treasury on the building of these factories.
I think that, generally speaking, we are right in concentrating on the industrial areas of Scotland, but there is one passage on page 60 of the Report which makes me very angry. It is about the other development districts, such as Anstruther, Girvan, Rothesay, Sanquhar, Stranraer, Lesmahagow and Cumnock. The Report says:
One project was completed in 1961 and another was approved but not started at 31st March, with employment potentials of 100 and 50 respectively.


The Board of Trade seem to be too ashamed to say how little they have managed to do in these areas and do not give details in the case where the factory was completed.
These places are the complete Cinder-elks of the Local Employment Act, and I am extremely indignant about the way in which Stranraer has been treated. We have a modern air base at West Freugh, which is used by such firms as Elliott Automation, Blackburn Aircraft and Ferranti, which shows the sort of work which is being done there, and in which the local people are being trained, but it is an open secret that the Minister of Aviation would like to close it down, although it has spent about half a million pounds on it. About a year ago, the "Midas" space project came up, which was absolutely ideal for such an area, but instead of it going there it went to an aerodrome near Carlisle, which was not even in a development district. I have never been able to understand that at all.
Take the case of the great military port of Cairnryan, which was sold to scrap merchants, at the same time as the "Polaris" was brought in and placed in the most half-baked place imaginable— Holy Loch near Glasgow. I cannot understand any reason why it should have been sent up there, near the city of Glasgow, when Stranraer is just as close to Prestwick Airport as is Dunoon, if it comes to flying the crews borne to America. There is neglect of areas like Stranraer, where no Government Department will build an advance factory, and where there is no question of Scottish Industrial Estates building a factory to rent. All we can hope for there is to be able to borrow money at the rates I quoted earlier when we do not get a building grant, when we have an industry which wants to come into the area, which is very suitable for it, and includes people on the board of directors very experienced in that industry, and when the amount of finance available is, as the Toothill Report suggests in paragraphs 20 to 24, suitable for help by the Board of Trade.
While I have great confidence in our new Secretary of State for Scotland and while I thoroughly welcome his appointment, and while I think the Board of Trade has done an extremely good job

on the whole in Scotland, I feel that I should be failing in my duty to my constituents, in view of the way in which Stranraer has been treated, if I did not vote against the Government in the Lobby tonight.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. J. Hill: The new Secretary of State for Scotland said that he was a Scot, but I am afraid that Scottish hon. Members on this side of the House will not welcome that statement very much after what he said to them today. We have been listening to a brief prepared, I presume, by the backroom boys and read by the new Secretary of State. He did not deviate from that brief, but there was nothing in it to tell us what steps he was to take to alleviate the problems facing Scotland now.
Last week, the then Secretary of State made a statement about what was to happen to the mining industry. When he was pressed for details, he gave no answer, although those details were known to every newspaper in the country and were on the tape. If the new Secretary of State consults his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, he may be told exactly what is proposed for the Scottish pits. The National Coal Board has now completed its survey and 27 pits in Scotland are due to be closed, possibly within a year while another 33 have a doubtful future and 46 are presumed safe.
But will the 33 pits classed as doubtful close within three years? Will the Minister of Power tell us whether that is the case and whether within the next three years manpower within the Scottish coal industry will fall by nearly 24,000 men, and there will be no jobs to replace those which are lost? In Scotland we are convinced, and have been convinced for some time, that the Government aim for the Scottish industry to be run down to a minimum.
Last year, although Scotland was struggling, the Minister of Power agreed that Scottish coal prices should be 10s. a ton higher than those in any other part of the country. The Government toll us that they are trying to attract industry to Scotland, but they impose conditions on the coal industry which make it impossible for the industry to compete


in the fuel market. The miners are constantly told that Scotland's coal industry is £100 million in the red and that the reason is low output. But last year output of coal in Scotland increased by almost 11 per cent., and, addressing the annual miners' conference at Skegness two or three weeks ago, Lord Robens said that we could be proud that output in the mining industry was increasing.
What reward do the miners of Scotland get for the increased output, apart from insecurity and the fear of the loss of their jobs? When these 24,000 jobs go—as they will go unless the Government do something about it—there will be no other jobs to replace them. The former Secretary of State said that he would institute five new industrial estates, but what is the use of industrial estates if there is no industry for them? Are the Government prepared to accept responsibility and to direct industry— which is my view—or start industry themselves to provide jobs for displaced miners.
My constituency is adjacent to the site of the new town about which we have heard so much. Two years ago, the Government introduced the Local Employment Act. The then Member for West Lothian and I were successful in getting the Calders area scheduled. Then we got the B.M.C. factory, which we were glad to have, but the President of the Board of Trade descheduled the area. What is now gumming up the works with the B.M.C. factory? There were great promises at the time about the creation of jobs and ancillary work and it was said that at the end of the day B.M.C. would employ between 5,000 and 6,000 men. But something went wrong somewhere and the pipeline is still choked.
In answers to questions and in debates we have been repeatedly told about the number of jobs going to Scotland, and yet when the Minister of Power finally strangled the shale industry—and strangle it he did—I asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he was prepared to reschedule the Calders area. He then refused, but two days after the result of the West Lothian by-election was announced he rescheduled it without anyone asking him. At the time the Minister of Labour said

in reply to questions that there were between 8,000 and 10,000 potential jobs in the area. If those jobs are still there, why is it necessary to reschedule the area?
When I asked for an advance factory to be built in the area to attract industry or ancillary employment, I was told that such building was not Government policy. But, with more courage than the Government, Midlothian County Council is building advance factories and attracting industrialists, something the Government should have been doing. It may interest the President of the Board of Trade to know that one of the sites in Midlothian near the B.M.C. factory, Burngrange, interested two industrialists who came to see the site and who were perfectly happy about it and the labour position until they were told that they would get no assistance from the Board of Trade, when they left. That is what the Government have been doing in an area where they could help to solve the unemployment problems of the centre of Scotland. The answer to all this is that the Government should give the miners and the Coal Board justice and a fair crack of the whip.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Is it not a fact that out of the 10,000 men made redundant in the mines in 1961, 9,900 have been successfully re-employed?

Mr. Hill: I agree, but they have been re-employed in the doubtful pits.

Miss Harvie Anderson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hill: The hon. Lady may shake her head, but that is true.
The Government must accept responsibility for the trade which the Scottish coal mining industry is losing to imported oil. We are convinced that the Government must accept responsibility for the finances of the industry and subsidise it. Why not? The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) is against subsidising the coal industry, but is he also against subsidising agriculture and spending public money on shipbuilding and the steel industry and on bolstering up dying private enterprise? Why, then, should he be against money for the coal industry? I am convinced, as is my


trade union, that unless the coal industry has a fair crack of the whip it cannot compete with oil.
Like the Government, we want to see the pits closed. We do not want men to spend the rest of their days employed in coal mines. But we do want security for them and their families, and that security cannot be attained unless the Government are prepared to bring in alternative industry. When they do so, we shall willingly say to them, "Close the lot." But at the moment it seems that the biggest export Scotland has is its young people.
The National Coal Board is making no bones about this. It is telling Scottish miners who are losing their jobs that if they go to Yorkshire or to the Midlands of England they may get jobs and houses there. But we do not want them to leave. We want to keep our youth at home.
Unless the Government do something about this, when the Prime Minister decides to hold the General Election—and it cannot come quickly enough—there will be more heads rolling. This time, however, it will not be the Prime Minister wielding the axe but the Scottish electorate. Many hon. Members opposite will not be back in this House after the election. The people of Scotland are tired of promises of jobs. We do not want "pie in the sky" but jobs for our people now—and it is the Government's job to give us those jobs.

7.42 p.m.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill) is rightly concerned about his area, whch is so dependent on one of the main industries in Scotland. He was courageous enough to come into the open and say that he disagreed with the speech made by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman gave us, for the first time in this House, a clear statement of Labour Party policy, in that he said that there would be, in his view, no direction of industry and of course, no direction of labour. But I think that that did not appeal to some horn. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Midlothian.

Mr. J. Hill: I said that that was my opinion and it is still my opinion.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Exactly. I thought the horn. Member was courageous to disagree with his own leader publicly in holding that view. We have had a clear statement of policy from the Leader of the Opposition. That being so, as neither direction of industry nor direction of labour would be carried out, it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman brought no fresh policy, except that he welcomed the idea of industrial estates and advance factories and also asked for a tougher policy on industrial development certificates.
I now pay my tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay), who is not here at the moment, because I think that he has laid the foundations for the diversification of Scotland's economy. I should also like to wish my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State well, because I believe that he is tough and determined enough to do everything he possibly can for Scotland.
We have had many analyses of Scotland's ills. I think that analysis can sometimes be overdone and that we perhaps overlook the fact, which was brought out by the Scottish Council, that although 50,000 jobs were lost in the two years up to July, 1961, 81,000 new ones were created. But the figures from July, 1961 to 1962 do not exist to show exactly what has happened up to date. The Council considers, however, that there is a drop in net growth due in part to what it calls a general drop in the industrial activity evident in England.
As the Leader of the Opposition rightly says, we cannot discuss Scotland's problems unless at the same time we also pay attention to what is happening in the United Kingdom economy as a whole. The latest United Kingdom trading return figures are very interesting because they are bad at home and good abroad. For example, our exports are up by £12 million, which is a 9 per cent. rise so far in 1962, while our imports are down £10 million. The result is that the visible trade gap is down to only £27 million. There is an improvement in invisible earnings and, as we all know, personal savings are high, not least in Scotland.
But at home sales have fallen and, therefore, one is bound to ask whether


it is safe to take, to some extent, a more reflationary policy. There are great difficulties in front of those trying to sell our exports. Everyone will have noticed that the rise in our export figures has been most striking in Europe, but Canada has raised tariffs around her and there is great uncertainty in America, which is now carrying out a "Buy American" campaign. It looks as if the markets for many traditional Scottish exports are going to be much more difficult in North America, while many countries are beginning to raise protective barriers around themselves.
The result in this country as a whole is that, allied to uncertainty as to whether we are going into the Common Market, there is a general lack of confidence in the markets and in buying power. That has resulted in a lack of orders. I believe that a considerable potential of capital investment is held back at the moment for reasons of caution at a time of immense change and, unfortunately, world uncertainty.
In this country, until a decision is made one way of another about the United Kingdom's external pattern of trade, this uncertainty will remain and will colour all our efforts either to help expand existing industry or to attract new industry to Scotland. I am driven to the conclusion that we have to treat Scotland and England in different respects, for there are certain incentives necessary to the Scottish economy which are not suitable at this time south of the Border because of the external difficulties to which I have drawn attention.
The Scottish Council says that we ought to be able, on an average, to get 15,000 jobs a year until 1970 but that this is not possible unless we are doing it in what is really a more thrusting economy. There are certain matters of United Kingdom concern that I think would directly affect and help Scotland at once. Here I may not be at all popular with those hon. Members who represent coal-mining constituencies, because I feel that a reduction in the fuel tax would be an instant lift to industry, whereas tax incentives would be very much slower in working.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) said about Scotland as a whole being con-

sidered as a development district. I know that we have often discussed this. In a way, I have been against it because Aberdeen happens to be a development district, and obviously if Scotland were made a development district we in Aberdeen would not have quite the same possibilities of attraction as we have now. Even now, I am told that it is a bit difficult to keep Aberdeen as a development district because, at this time of the year, our unemployment figure is, happily, under the national average at just under 3 per cent.
The time has come to regard Scotland as a separate region, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will give fresh thought to this and not reject matters which have often been considered by the Cabinet, and no doubt considered in the various Departments, but try to consider these factors in connection with it. The Scottish Council and the Toothill Committee recommended that public investment changes should have regard to regional conditions and suggested that it would not be inflationary, for example, to encourage construction and building north of the Border, while, for obvious reasons, holding it in check south of the Border. On the other hand, I think that even now an inflationary position is developing in the construction industry. For example, in my constituency there are demands for building to meet educational needs, hospital needs, and housing needs, and one of the most important things to be done is to have more local co-ordination between those authorities who want their building done at the same time. Would not it also be possible, for example, to have long-term interest rates reduced north of the Border? This would be of great benefit indeed.
I very much welcomed the first act of the new Secretary of State for Scotland, which was to postpone the rerating of industry until 1966. However, I suggest that the statement made the other day in connection with coal mining, that it was proposed to build advance factories and certain industrial estates, seemed to imply that these estates or advance factories would not be placed in Chose parts of Scotland which were not affected by the coal-mining industry.
As we know, the powers that are given to local authorities to build small advance factories or small industrial


estates allow them to have a grant for the purposes of servicing or clearing the sites, but they get no financial help towards the buildings. Therefore, should there not be a partnership between the Government and local authorities? If a local authority had the gumption, for instance in my area, to say, "We do not think that a large industrial estate would be suitable, but possibly a small one with one ox two small factories would be", why not have a partnership whereby the Government build the factories if the local authority is prepared to provide the basic need?
The fact remains that according to all the analyses that we have had, we in Scotland have to depend on private industry for 80 per cent. of our production and expansion, and I think that not enough is known or said about what is being done in the expansion of the existing industries. For instance, in Aberdeen the Pittodrie Granite Turning Company is now producing the largest granite rollers in the world. One is 38 feet long, and 90 per cent. of the output goes in exports, to Finland, Norway, Sweden, Belgium and France and so on.
Recently the Pneumatic Tool Company of Tullos has designed the Reich drill, which is the most modern rotary drill in the world. It is mobile and can work in rough territory on caterpillar tracks. It weighs over 38 tons. It has been exported to South Africa, Bechuanaland is interested in it, and the firm of Colvilles has asked for one for their work at Shap. But much of the work being done and the money being spent does not necessarily immediately employ more people. For instance, one can walk round Spiller's factory and see few men there because all the grain is moved through enormous pipes and elevators.
Recently in connection with the fishing industry £500,000 was spent by one firm on cold storage. This provides employment in some of the ancillary trades, but it does not give a true picture of the potential employment which might be had if we had a different type of industry.
Let us recognise what is being done. When we talk about emigration, let us remember that, whatever one thinks, emigration will always appeal to a large number of Scotsmen. It will appeal not

only because they like to live and work abroad, but because one cannot get over the fact that London is the financial capital of the world and there are many people who will always go out to seek such centres. Also let us not forget that this pull to the south is not peculiar to Scotland. Canada, which is a rich country full of natural resources, has a constant struggle to keep and establish her own separate identity.
Do not let us underestimate the difficulties or the size of the task, because we are trying to do four things simultaneously. We are trying, as bankers of the sterling area, to keep a strong £. We are trying to get economic growth, steady prices, and full employment, all in the middle of the second industrial revolution.
From the figures which have been given I believe that Scotland is on the move, that we have had enough of girning, and that if we are determined we shall succeed.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I came to this House eleven years ago, and I have heard the speech to which I have just listened on eleven annual occasions. The speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite are always the same. They always refer to heavy unemployment in Scotland. Eleven years ago there were 52,000 people unemployed in Scotland, and the situation then was regarded as terrible. I remember hon. Gentlemen opposite saying how bad the situation was, what the Government should do to remedy it, what had to be done, and what would be done. Today, there are nearly 80,000 people unemployed, and similar speeches are being made.
I agree with one point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir). In the past fortnight I have visited two modern firms. The one I saw at the weekend is a busy firm which twenty years ago would have employed 7,600 men and women to produce its present output. Today it employs 250. Another factory which twenty years ago would have employed 8,000 people today employs about 780. The fact is that new production industries are not large employment agencies. They produce large quantities


of goods, but they employ small quantities of labour.
I believe in the direction of industry. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) referred to Brittany having found a solution to the problem by the direction of industry. The French Government have a national plan. They take shares in an industry and undertake its direction. Near Orleans there is an overhead railway system acquired from Milngavie, and known as the Bannie Overhead Rail Plane—a Scottish invention. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) was with me when I went there. This has been done by the French Government. They are seeking contracts all over the world. This is State direction not of private enterprise but of Government enterprise.
Hon. Members opposite have said that they are in favour of this sort of thing, but I was surprised when the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) said that he was in favour of Government institutions being directed to Scotland. In the eleven years that I have been here I have seen Government institutions taken out of Scotland and sent south—from Greenock, Alexandria, Clydebank, Dalmuir and Rosyth. We have seen Government industries directed away from Scotland. It appears that hon. Members opposite believe in the direction of industry if it is directed out of Scotland.

Mr. Rankin: My hon. Friend will recollect that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) wanted industry directed only into his division.

Mr. Bence: Human nature being what it is, I can assure my hon. Friend that if I can get the Government to agree to the direction of industry to Scotland I shall try to get it directed to Dunbartonshire. I do not quarrel with the hon. Member on that score.
The point is that in the modern industrial complex more and more people will be employed in ancillary services, with a rising standard of living. As a result of the techniques of modern production, high wages can be paid to a small number of people and a tremendous amount of social and cultural activity is created around that complex,

leading to the employment of more and more people in all sorts of services for the community. That is what happens in the South, but in Wales and Scotland, where the heavy industries are situated, many people are employed in production but very few in the ancillary social services outside, and there is a lower social standard. The Government must undertake some direction of State activity into Scotland, even if it has to come from the South.
The Secretary of State, in what perhaps I ought to call a peroration—or was it something written in at the end of his brief?—frightened me, because he actually said that he believed that there would be a chance for Scotland when world conditions were right. In the eleven years that I have been here I have seen world trade expand, wages double and conditions vastly improve in the Midlands and the South, and in Germany, France, Belgium and Scandinavia. I have seen this happen in Italy, and in every industrial community in the world except Scotland. While all this has been going on unemployment in Scotland has increased. What sort of conditions must exist in the world before Scotland gets standards equal to what the rest of the world is now enjoying? My only conclusion is that the people of the rest of the world, outside the borders of Scotland, will all have to become millionaires.
We hear a good deal about displaced miners and the need for their redeployment in other industries. I can assure the hon. Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) that in my constituency some of the displaced miners are over 45 years of age, and they cannot get jobs. Local authorities do not want people over 45 years of age, because of their superannuation schemes. This consideration also applies in industry. When I worked for B.M.C. in the Midlands it did not want men over 45 because of its superannuation scheme. But some of the miners who are being displaced and who are 45 years of age or more fought in the last war. They have families. Many such miners in my constituency have five, six or seven children. These men are being put out of work by the closing down of pits, and they will never be able to get other work.
Two of the pits in Twechar, in my constituency, are scheduled to be closed,


and when they are closed the mining industry in that area will be finished. Yet a new town is being built which will ultimately have a population of 70,000. What the people there will do, heaven only knows. Figures of new jobs becoming available are bandied about the House. New jobs are being provided in Dalmuir, by the firm of Babcock and Wilcox. But a Royal Ordnance Factory there was closed down, and 1,800 men lost their jobs. The firm of Babcock and Wilcox will employ 1,000 men. It is said that we have got 1,000 new jobs, but this is merely a transfer of old jobs into new jobs. This is how we have been hoodwinked up to now. But the people of Scotland refuse to be hoodwinked any further.
The Scottish Industrial Estates had a piece of land on Clydebank which was scheduled for industrial development. This was sold or leased, two or three years ago, and I understand that it was taken by Remington-Rand. There it is today, covered with weeds. Nobody else can use it. Why should sanction be given to Scottish Industrial Estates to sell or lease a piece of land scheduled fox industrial development when the company which takes it over does not use it? Will the President of the Board of Trade consider all the facts about this piece of land in Dalmuir, which I understand is held by Remington-Rand? Is that firm going to build a factory there? If it does not want the land, let it be bought back by compulsory purchase order at the price paid for it.

Mr. Ross: They will not do that.

Mr. Bence: Why should not they?

Mr. Ross: If my hon. Friend studies the last Town and Country Planning Act passed by this Government he will see that it was the precursor to the considerable rise that has taken place in land prices, and it could not be bought back for the price which the company paid for it.

Mr. Bence: There we are, then. But we know of cases where Departments of State have sold land at very low prices and have had to pay fancy prices to get it back.
Little industrial land is scheduled for development in Kirkintilloch, but there is to be a very big overspill from

Glasgow. Kirkintilloch is trying to get industry from Glasgow, and Glasgow is trying to get industry itself. Who will win the tussle? This is a serious business for towns like Milngavie and Kirkintilloch, who have to take the overspill from Glasgow.
I have been given figures relating to five industries. In one it takes £23,000 of capital to employ one man. In the case of the oil industry, the cost is higher. In the lowest—modern light engineering—it costs £12,000. I am assured that those figures have been increasing, and will continue to increase, and the longer we delay in getting industry to move into Scotland the higher those costs will be. This trend applies to public buildings of all kinds, and all sorts of capital accumulation. Real capital is becoming more and more expensive. The longer we delay the more difficult it will be to solve the problem of Scotland, and the more future generations will condemn the party opposite. They may even condemn this institution.

8.10 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I am glad to have had the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I want to follow the theme underlying the speech of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). I wish to concentrate on what is, unfortunately, a problem relevant to a vital sector of industrial relations, known as the problem of redundancy. I do not think that it can have escaped notice that the speeches in this debate have revealed an underlying anxiety about this problem.
I understand that the object of the debate today is to help Scottish industry. As I see it, there is one great difficulty which we face. Those of us who represent Scottish constituencies are so aware of the difficulties confronting Scottish industry that we tend to convey to the world an image of this problem and thereby overcast the excellent work being done and the excellent workmanship which is available in Scotland. But in Scottish industry there is too much old-fashioned thinking and there is stalemate in method. We have "go slows" and demarcation disputes, such as are to be found in England,


and this attitude is to a great extent, due to the problem of insecurity. The problem of insecurity of tenure in employment arises undoubtedly from a background of possible redundancy which must exist in the minds of many people.
Those who experienced life in the 1930s or who were brought up during that period must have a feeling of fear in the back of their minds which plays a major part in their attitude to their work. I do not believe that fear is the only motive which lies behind the difficulties we face, but I think that fear is a much more real motive than many of us are prepared to accept. Therefore, I believe there to be an urgent need for better understanding, on the one hand, by the Government and by management of the psychology of employees, and on the other hand, I believe there to be need for the employees to understand the economic forces which control the destiny of this island and also the destiny of the employees themselves. I believe it vital that there should be a better interchange of ideas with the hope of achieving a better understanding. If, as I believe, some form of security of employment is a necessary ingredient in industry, I consider that this is a matter of over-riding importance which should be given great consideration now—much greater consideration than it has received up to the present time.
Let us consider the effect of this insecurity as a whole. Surely it is devastating, because it is reflected in an attitude which is against progressive change. There is also the feeling that redundancy will result from progress and that is a feeling which we ought to dispel. If new thinking is required for this problem, as I believe that it is, we must evolve a remedy for redundancy. I do not believe that that remedy lies necessarily in that phase of which we have been speaking today. We have had, and are having, experience of the period between present and future employment which is so unsettling. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill) and I have crossed swords on this point, but I believe that the majority of those who have become redundant in some of our major industries have been re-employed.

The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), from a sitting position, interjected and voiced what I think is the main anxiety, that young people are not going into these industries.

Miss Herbison: Hear, hear.

Miss Harvie Anderson: This feeling that there is of the fear of redundancy and the necessity for re-employment runs right through the age groups and affects the young people so that their minds turn against the progress which we desire to see in Scottish industry. Some new thinking has been done by Scottish industrialists, and I think it right to put forward what many people have already heard about—the plan advanced by the chairman of Thermotank Limited. We should welcome new thinking on these lines. The concern of the chairman of that firm is to find a solution to the problem created by this feeling of fear and insecurity which lies behind redundancy which, in turn, has such a bad effect on progress in industry.

Mr. Rankin: Does the hon. Lady realise that today the greatest handicap facing Scottish industrialists is the fact that the cost of boiler fuel in Scotland is 25s. a ton greater than in England? That bears on the problem of redundancy.

Miss Harvie Anderson: It is unlikely that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) and I would come to the same conclusion. I think that the reasons for the difficulties which we are experiencing in Scotland today are more widespread and deeply rooted than the rather simple fact which he has mentioned.

Mr. Rankin: It is not a simple fact.

Miss Harvie Anderson: May I return to the theme which I have been trying to follow? I am sure that the hon. Member for Govan has been listening eagerly to every word I have said. I wsih to refer to the solution which has been put forward by the chairman of Thermotank Limited, who is a young and forceful personality in Scottish industry. It was also advanced by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) in his Redundancy Bill.
As I have said, I believe it is time that we gave thought to this problem and


began to think out some adequate solution. It has been suggested that the only solution is a national one and I believe that to be true, because redundancy reverberates nationally. We do not want to tackle this thing in piecemeal fashion. If we regard it as a national problem we must face reality and the need for an employment code binding the employer and the employee.
Having envisaged this, we must accept the need for redundancy payments, under conditions acceptable to management and men, and I 'think that Mr. Iain Stewart's suggestion of a national mobility trust is not very wide of the mark in the next phase. This would be a trust administered largely by the T.U.C., which in any successful scheme of this kind would have a major part to play. Under such a scheme, the board of any company have an obligation to establish an acceptable two-way communication. Its object again must be that one side understand better what the other side is driving at and why, because forces on both sides are very often outside the control of the individuals concerned.
These are provocative suggestions. They have been made by others but they have not been made often enough and they have not given rise to sufficient thought from those who must put them into operation. They reflect new, but I believe useful, thinking. They have been discussed in political, trade union and industrial circles. However, they 'have to be much more widely discussed and some solution arrived at to enable this changing pattern of Scottish industry to be not only the reality we hope it will be but more easy for those who are bound to be adversely affected in the welcome change.
The hon. Member for Midlothian very wisely painted this out by saying what I have heard from miners so many times, that they do not want their young people to go into the mines because they want a progressive industry such as the hon. Member fox Dunbartonshire, East has illustrated, which brings in its wake good wages and a high standard of living. If we in Scotland are to face up to this great change from our narrow and heavy industries, we must do it by protection in this way.
In the minute or two remaining to me I want to put to the President of the

Board of Trade a constituency point about which I feel very deeply. Although we have to go on a national basis toward progress and new thinking for new industries, we must maintain in some adequate or improved form the industries whereby Scotland has lived far generations. This includes a number of industries perhaps small by the standards of industry in the latter half of the twentieth century.
In my constituency the knitwear industry is doing what has been an up-to-date and thriving trade. At the moment it is being throttled and nearly killed by imports from another part of the Commonwealth. I realise the difficulties presented by the fact that the imports come from the Commonwealth but I beg my right hon. Friend to look at this before it is too late, because although great emphasis has been placed today on the old industries of Scotland declining and changing, the woollen industry in all its aspects is essential to Scotland and will be essential for some years to come. I earnestly ask that consideration be given towards that support now before it presents my right hon. Friend with the problem which the heavy industries present him with today.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am on my feet on behalf of small com-munities—'Blackridge, Stoneyburn, Fauldhouse, Winch-burgh, Seafield, and Livingston Station and other communities up and down central Scotland—in the belief that human beings should not be obliged against their will to leave their homes, their relatives and their friends and go away in search of work; that children should not have their schooling interrupted merely because father has to go south to England or to Canada; that teen-agers are entitled as of night to work in or near their own home towns without this dreadful business of travelling twenty miles to work and twenty miles back, which not only eats into their pockets but, which is far more important to me, injures their health, and in the belief that those who are "too old" at 45 or 55 should be given other work.
What this amounts to is that we should have public works. I am on my feet on behalf of certain practical public works. There are two objections. It


may be said that public works interfere with freedom. Let us be clear about this freedom. Even at this late hour I make no apologies for discussing freedom Which is the more important—the freedom to spend money as one pleases or the freedom to work, the freedom of investment or the freedom of teen-agers to find work in their own home towns?
Again there is the question of cost It may be said, "He is suggesting public works. He is inexperienced. He will learn". When many hon. Members were in Parliament in 1945 I was only twelve years old. That was an hour of national need. To these small communities in Scotland on whose behalf I am speaking this is also an hour of national need. I can only reflect that when in 1942 it was necessary to build Hurricanes the accountant did not have his way. In 1962 let us no longer be governed by accountants and Treasury officials.
Without making a personal attack, I as a young man sadly ask one of my former heroes as an economist, Professor Cairncross, "Have you lost your soul? In 1944 you were suggesting that public works should be done inversely as private investment so that people in areas which needed it would benefit". I of all people can respect a person for changing his mind, but I think that we are entitled to know why the Treasury has changed its mind on the usefulness of public works.
The first public work which I suggest is the reconstruction of Turnhouse. After all, this should be non-controversial, because the Toothill Committee said that the main runway is wrongly sited to the prevailing wind and the subsidiary runway is not long enough. Surely there is a case, remembering that it would give employment to shale miners otherwise too old at 50, to carry out the major re-construcion of an airport where business will grow, with the likely development of Livingstone and in the light of the development at Bathgate and the construction of the Forth Road Bridge.
The second of the public works—this is very relevant in the light of what the Secretary of State told us about creating the conditions in which new industry can flourish—is the electrification of the railway line which goes between Airdrie and Edinburgh. This is not merely a

constituency point. If Bathgate is to be the growth point of the whole of the Scottish economy, facilities must be created, and created in good time. Besides this, electrification would provide a lot of work, which is needed right now.
The third public works scheme is this. I do not say that this should be sited in West Lothian or near it. Perhaps East Fife or Ayrshire would be better. Two major power stations of the Kincardine Mackenzie type should be erected using pulverised fuel. If the mining industry is to be helped, perhaps the stations could be run with a standard, if low quality, product such as pulverised coal, possibly forcing people to use electricity in their homes. However, this makes sense in the light of the fact that the Zeta heavy hydrogen process has not been all that was expected of it. Hunters-ton has been shown to be relatively four times more expensive per kilowatt hour for the capital invested than a power station of the type of Kincardine or Cockenzie.
There is also the question of the chemical industry, which depends on coal as a raw material. It is time that hon. Members looked at the Wilson Report on the uses of coal as a derivative. After all, by turning coal into carbon monoxide and hydrogen and then synthesising it all sorts of products, from synthetic rubber to polyurethene, can be made. This is the basis of one of the industries of the future. It can be prefectly easily done, because it is the logical extension of the work of the National Coal Board.
Time is running short, but I must make one more point. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) spoke about a fifth university. This would create employment, but I am interested unashamedly not in a fifth university but in a sixth university, a seventh university and an eighth university. It may be said that this is because I am an educationist. On Sunday morning I went to see the National Union of Mineworkers at the Woodend pit near Armadale which has been scheduled as a "B" pit. The president of the Woodend miners did not say, "Fight as hard as you can to keep Woodend open". He wants Woodend kept open, but that was not his first request. His first request was to point


at the youngsters round about and say, "Tarn, do you know that in fifteen years' time anybody who does not go to a university will be considered ignorant? "That is not my remark. It is the remark of the president of the Woodend miners. I think he is right.
Added to this, during the West Lothian by-election I was frequently asked whether I did not think it was wrong that Scots should be excluded from university places while Englishmen, Africans and Indians came to Scottish universities. I shook my head and did not give the questioners the answer that they wanted. I said I thought it was quite right that Englishmen, Nigerians and Indians should be welcomed at out universities, because that is the sort of thing a university is for. A university becomes valuable if all sorts of people can be brought together in it. At the same time, it is a sad situation that we have to turn away Scots. Some may think it equally sad, if not sadder, that we have to turn away Nigerians, Ghanaians and Indians who want to come here.
This is the argument for setting up in Scotland now four universities, because they take a long time to grow. If I am still here in fifteen years' time I shall be very surprised if any hon. Member says that we have a surplus of university places. We can do this. It would help our brickworks. It would also help the many people of 50 to 55 who could work for the university establishments as they grew up. Let us get on with the job very quickly.
There is one question that hon. Members opposite must answer. I am not saying this in a sneering way. It is a question that we all have to answer. If the Russians can develop the Arctic, if the Israelites can develop the desert and if the Brazilians can develop the jungle, is it really beyond the wit of Her Majesty's Government to develop the far-off regions of Britain? When I speak up for Scotland, I also speak up for Anglesey, Northern Ireland and any other parts of Britain which might be in a similar situation.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: We have had a rather interesting debate. I want to open my remarks by welcoming the new Secretary of State for Scotland

to his present office. It is a very high position in Scotland. It is also a very onerous position, and on the right hon. Gentleman's shoulders will fall the responsibility for guiding Scotland in the months that lie ahead. I have already conveyed the condolences and sympathy of my hon. Friends and myself to the ex-Secretary of State in view of the very personal troubles which he has been suffering for a long time.
Having welcomed the Secretary of State to his office, I must tell him that I could not welcome the speech which he read this afternoon. He said that enormous tasks lie ahead of us in building up our industry and new industry, and that that was what Scotland required. It is not good enough to make such statements 11 years after the present Government have been in office. What have the Government been doing for 11 years when the newly appointed Secretary of State finds he must tell us that that is the job that Scotland has to undertake? Did he not realise that when he was saying that he was condemning every one of his predecessors and the successive Governments of which he has been a member?
I did not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he used another phrase. He said that we must let other people know that manpower is Scotland's greatest asset. What did he mean by that? Did he mean that we have so many unemployed that they can be used up if industry only would come into Scotland? Surely unemployment is not an asset. It is a condemnation of the system under which those men have been condemned to live. Instead of regarding it as an asset, the Secretary of State ought to have been sorry at having to report such a thing to the House.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Government will have to trigger off action and give people the facilities for working and create a new economic situation in Scotland. But the right hon. Gentleman did not say whose action the Government were going to trigger off. The right hon. Gentleman offered no solution at all. All I can tell him about his speech is that it was only because of the usual generosity of my hon. Friends with regard to a maiden speech that he got through quite as easily as he did.

Mr. Willis: We shall not do it again.

Mr. Hoy: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance.
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) made an interesting speech. He spoke about the part that afforestation could play in Scotland's economy. But he did not face the issue which the Forestry Commission has been facing, and it is not a new one. In Scotland today the Forestry Commission employs about 4,000 people, maintains about 2,000 miles of road and has an acreage extending to about 1½ million acres. The one thing that prevents the Commission from developing its work is the lack of land.

Sir J. Gilmour: It was for that very reason that I suggested that agriculture and forestry should be put under the same control. It seems to me that there is competition between the two. We need co-ordination of policy to ensure that the very best use is made of the available land.

Mr. Hoy: Of course we have co-ordination at present. I was in the north of Scotland recently addressing the farmers of Aberfeldy. They were bringing this to my attention, but they are under the Secretary of State for Scotland. He is the Minister responsible. It is no use the hon. Baronet talking about co-ordination if the principal defect is that the Commission does not have sufficient land. He knows as well as I that the main reason is that to such a great extent land in Scotland remains in private hands and private landlords resist attempts to get land for this purpose.
I look back to the days when Lord Robinson was chairman of the Forestry Commission. I remember the attacks made on him because he endeavoured to get more and more land to build up the Forestry Commission in Scotland and elsewhere. I agree with what the hon. Member said, but the test would be if he would lend assistance to the Forestry Commission to get the land it wants. Even at present because of the scarcity of land the Commission is compelled to plant on land which previously was regarded as unplantable. I agree that great inroads can be made, but that will require the Government—this is where responsibility falls on the Secre-

tary of State—not only to take the power but to use the power, to give power to the Commission to buy the land necessary for the work it wants to undertake
We had another interesting speech this afternoon. It was made by the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir). We were delighted to hear her. She was the only one who spoke about "girning" over Scotland. She has to do that because she comes here so seldom that she has to record her attendance. She spoke about special interest rates for Scotland as a way in which industry could be attracted there, especially to the north of Scotland. This was a change. On many occasions my hon. Friends have asked if we could have special interest terms to attract industry, to allow capital development, to build new factories and provide employment, but that has been laughed at by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Lady has at last been converted to the view that such special interest rates are a possibility.
Perhaps she had been converted by the way in which the Government have been able to hand out cheap money for motor car development in Scotland. I am not criticising that but we must remember, especially hon. Members opposite, that all these large developments taking place in Scotland at present are either through nationalised industry or industries which are receiving State aid. Not a single development is being done without that Even the industry to which the Secretary of State is so proud to belong could not live without a State subsidy. I will say this: it was a pleasant relief for the first time for a long while to have a speech from a Secretary of State for Scotland which did not include the word "pipeline". I give the President of the Board of Trade due warning that he had better not introduce it.
The need for this debate requires no explanation. On previous occasions my hon. and right hon. Friends have been accused of carping criticism, what the noble Lady described as girning. As I said a few moments ago in her absence, she has to use these words in between her visits to the United States because that records her attendance here. That is the kind of thing hon. Members opposite have accused us of, but on this


occasion, except for that one example and a little from the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), it has not been levelled against this side of the House.
That was because all realise the very difficult position in which Scotland finds itself. It has been the job of my hon. Friends throughout the years, not only this afternoon but on many occasions, to draw the attention of Ministers to the economic position in Scotland. Everyone admits that what they have been saying for years has been perfectly justified. I say to the President of the Board of Trade that he was just as guilty of this sort of criticism as any of his hon. Friends. It was when unemployment was mounting this year, even as late as April, that the right hon. Gentleman was saying to the House:
There is nothing much wrong, except in the eyes of hon. Members opposite."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1962; Vol. 657, c. 1188–9.]
I am certain he will not want to repeat that statement tonight. He said it in the month of April, which was a month that did not pass unnoticed in Scotland. At the bag inning of that month Scotland thought and thought Tightly, that its share of unemployment was already too great, but the month had hardly started before we were informed through the columns of the Scotsman of further blows to follow. I remember opening the Scotsman on 4th April. Double headlines on the right-hand side said:
Death Sentence For Shale Oil.
Industry Has Only Six Weeks to Live.
1,050 Men Will Be Left Without Jobs.
In the left-hand corner of the paper it was said:
Fight To Save The North British Loco Works Fails.
1,400 Employees Face Redundancy.
Strangely enough, the only real ray of light that was shown in the columns of the Scottish Press that day was the announcement about the building of a ship at Aberdeen. A cargo and passenger vessel had been launched which had been built in the shipyards of a well-known firm in Aberdeen. This was the one ray of light. The only comment that I make about it is that the ship was ordered by the Secretary of State for Scotland, paid for by Government money, to serve a nationalised service.
Not even the leader of the Liberal Party objected to that. Apparently, he was delighted to welcome this ship, nationalised and paid for by the Government, into his constituency. I say to hon. Members opposite that if they pause to think of this little report there may be a lesson for them in Scotland. It may be that Government action can succeed in Scotland where private enterprise has failed.
If the beginning of the month was bad, worse was to follow. Before the month had passed, we had a visit from the chairman of the National Coal Board, who, amidst the monastic simplicity and frugality of Gleneagles Hotel, announced that further pit closures would take place in Scotland and that thousands more miners would possibly lose their jobs. This, of course, caused consternation in Scotland. As usual, it was my hon, Friends who responded quickly and demanded from the Government an immediate debate.
It was held upstairs and we had a two-day debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. It was anticipated that the miners would lose their jobs. I asked the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland if he could say what consideration the Government had given to this problem. The hon. Gentleman replied:
The hon. Member for Leith referred to the anxiety which has been caused as the result of a speech made over the weekend by the Chairman of the National Coal Board. I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power about this, and he has assured me that nothing that was said gave any final figures, or indeed, any figures at all, about manpower. I know that estimates have subsequently appeared in the Press, but these are not official. The position is that the Board is still working on the problem, and when it has arrived at definite estimates it will, as is customary, inform the union."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 3rd May, 1962; c. 15.]
He gave us no figures and no information as to what was happening. That is one of our chief complaints against the Scottish Office because this performance was repeated by the ex-Secretary of State for Scotland last week. In fact, in making the announcement, he did not disclose a single word about how many miners would be involved. Unless the Scottish Office appreciates the significance of these changes and the position of the men who will lose their jobs and plans alternative employment for them.


it will be impossible for Scotland even to maintain its present position.
If the Government find it difficult to understand it in that way, let me put it as simply as I can. As a result of the recent statement on pit closures, some 6,000 miners in central Fife will lose their employment. This means 6,000 fewer jobs. What steps are the Government taking to make good the loss? This is of vital importance not only to central Fife, but to the whole of Scotland, because, unless we provide suitable alternative employment, the drift from Scotland will continue.
This afternoon, in an excellent speech, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition gave some figures to show just how this was affecting Scotland. I will give the House some more, though I do not wish to use too many figures because I always remember the story told by our late colleague, Tom Hubbard, who was the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs. He was at a meeting accompanied by a supporting speaker, and the supporting speaker said that he would not bore the audience with statistics; he could safely leave that to the candidate. I do not want to be in a similar position tonight, but I shall put a few figures to the House to prove my case.
Since 1956, the total working population of Scotland has fallen by about 38,000. During the past year, the total population of Scotland fell by a further 24,000. This has happened in face of the fact that the population in the rest of the country has been increasing. By comparison, Scotland's position has worsened.
The reason is not difficult to find. It can be summed up in one word, unemployment. As my right hon. Friend said, our unemployment figures are always twice as large as those for the rest of the country. Compared with London, the South-East and the Midlands our position is even worse. Taking the last five years, unemployment in London and the south-eastern area varied between 0·9 per cent. at its lowest and 1·3 per cent. at its highest. In the Midlands, during the same period, unemployment ranged between 1·0 per cent. and 1·6 per cent. The figures for

Scotland show that our percentage rose from 2·6, the best, to 4·4 per cent. In Scotland's best year unemployment was twice as heavy as the worst figure in London and the South-East. That is the comparison.
Our present total of 72,143 men, women, boys and girls unemployed is 12,380 more than the total a year ago. Included in that figure—this is terribly important—are 2,200 boys under 18 and 1,305 girls under 18 signing on at the employment exchanges. There is something wrong with a system which condemns young people under 18 years of age, just out of school, to go to the employment exchange and be offered no means of earning a livelihood.
Lest hon. Members should get it into their minds that this is just a transitory phase through which the people of Scotland are passing, it is as well for the House to know that over 60 per cent.— nearly two out of every three—of the 73,000 unemployed in Scotland have been signing at the employment exchanges for eight weeks or more. We have this hard core of unemployed and, as my right hon. Friend said, all this is reflected in our figures of industrial production which show that, between 1954 and 1961, while Britain's level of production rose by 20 per cent. Scotland's rose by only half as much. When we remember, as we have remembered today, that Britain's record is about the worst in Europe, we realise that Scotland is all that much worse off. The people of Scotland want to know what will be done about it.
The demand for action does not come only from these benches. Many have joined in the cry, and it was interesting to hear the voices of one or two hon. Members opposite joining in this afternoon. The Convention of Royal Burghs of Scotland has spoken out. Let me remind the House of what was said in April this year in a report in the Press about the Convention:
The convention unanimously adopted a motion urging the Government to adopt a ' sincere and vigorous' policy on direction of industry to underdeveloped areas. The motion, by the commissioner for Leven, Provost William Laing, asked the convention to express concern and deplore the ' indifferent attitude' of the Government towards ' the alarming decline in Scotland's traditional industries and consequent unemployment'.


Let me remind the Government once more that that was the unanimous finding of the Convention of Royal Burghs of Scotland.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) made some suggestions this afternoon about how this problem should be tackled. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) also had some suggestions to make. We on this side have made many suggestions for dealing with this problem in these debates. If the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South is interested in the Labour Party's policy, let her consult the programme issued by the Scottish Labour Party Let Scotland Prosper and the booklet Signposts for the Sixties, and she will find out what we mean.
Quick action must be taken if we are to stave off a worsening of the position. I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that Government orders can be placed quickly even with existing firms in Scotland. This would help to stave off a certain amount of unemployment. There may be some little difficulty in convincing certain people in the South. I heard only last week, when travelling up with one of the greatest industrialists in Scotland if not in Britain, that his concern was being persuaded by the Government to place an order in the South rather than in Scotland because it was much more suitable to the social and administrative convenience of certain officials.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll) indicated dissent.

Mr. Hoy: Oh, yes, it was. It is no use the President of the Board of Trade indicating that that is not so, because I shall show him that it is true. This is one of the reasons why we do not get as much development in Scotland from Government sources as we should. The Government could quite well do this and it would do considerable good to Scotland without having a bad effect on the South.
We have suggested for a long time that advance factories should be built. I was a little disappointed with the Secretary of State's speech this afternoon in that he did not expand the statement of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power

who last week, in trying to soften the blow of pit closures, said that we should have some new estates, new sites and new factories. If the President of the Board of Trade cannot tell us exactly where the factories are to be, surely he can tell us how many factories the Government have decided to build, how many jobs will be provided by them and when they will be built, because urgency is the keynote of this action.
Even if all these temporary measures are taken, they can be regarded as no more than palliatives for Scotland. What is wanted is a long-term plan to allow Scotland to play its part in the economic recovery of our country as a whole. Simply to close down railways and mines for bookkeeping purposes is not planning. What we should be doing, and what the Government should be doing, is finding out what part these industries will play in Scotland's future. Certainly, it might be interesting to know what part the railways will play in a co-ordinated transport system that will best suit the industrial and social needs of Scotland.
The decay of old industries makes the need for new ones urgent and imperative. The case for this is put succinctly in Signposts for the Sixties. It contains new ideas. The right hon. Gentleman might not agree with them, nor might any hon. Member opposite, but at least they are put forward as a contribution to be discussed and as something which might provide a solution. At least, they are a contribution in ideas which the Government have not equalled.
In Signposts for the Sixties, it is stated:
 How can Britain make up the lost ground in the scientific revolution? The first thing to be done is to reconstruct and greatly to enlarge the existing National Research Development Corporation.
In its new form, the Corporation should be authorised to engage in production, either in its own establishments, through the creation of subsidiary productive undertakings, or by joint enterprises with private companies which have the expertise to develop new products but lack the resources.
Does any hon. Member opposite find objection with that? It continues:
 For a fraction of the cost of one of the missile contracts, the National Research Development Corporation could stimulate research directed towards promoting new developments in civil industry, for example


for new advances in textile machinery, shipbuilding techniques, machine tools or electronics. Encouragement could be given to young scientists to form research and development teams to work on particular programmes.
It goes on to develop the case for State-owned industries if they are necessary. It expresses willingness to go into partnership with private enterprise to exploit these resources, on behalf not only of Scotland, but of Britain. If all this is to be done, we have to consider whether we have the organisation to carry it through. This is important. I agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who raised this aspect. This might well mean a new department in the Scottish Office, not all on its own, but a department working in conjunction with, or as part of, a larger development corporation which would revitalise our whole country.
We will expand as a nation if we are prepared to devote a greater part of our income to work of that kind. In Scotland, we will be only too willing to play our part along with the rest of the country, because we do not believe that we can shut ourselves off from the rest of Great Britain. All we ask is the opportunity to play our part in developing our resources and to put our country into the forefront of the European nations, as it was for so long. These are plans that will call for action, for work and for determination. I am bound to say that I do not think that lead can come from right hon. and hon. Members who occupy the benches opposite.

9.4 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): It is just over three years since I last took part in a Scottish debate on industry and employment. I am glad to have the opportunity of taking part once again, particularly as on the previous occasion I followed immediately the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) and I find that I am doing so once again.
If I may be allowed to make a comparison, I think that tonight's debate has been better than the one in which we both took part three years ago, because I understand there has been an unofficial arrangement whereby hon. Members on both Slides would limit their speeches to about fifteen minutes. As a result,

more hon. Members have been able to speak than on the previous occasion. I therefore endorse the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that Members representing English constituencies might do well to come to Scottish debates. If they had come in greater numbers today, they would have attended a model debate excellently conducted by both sides. Despite the fact that so many hon. Members limited their speeches to a few minutes' duration, it was not possible for all hon. Members to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) was anxious to make his contribution to the debate, as was the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). [HON. MEMBERS: "And many more."] Of course, I cannot name them all, but I thought that I had been fair by mentioning one from each side. I am sure that anyone who knows about Scottish debates will know that inevitably there are some disappointed Members.
On a matter of detail, before I turn to my main speech, I shall be most grateful if the hon. Member for Leith will give me details of the contract to which he referred. I appreciate that he probably did not wish to give details in public, but if he cares to let me know about them privately, I shall be glad to look into the matter straight away.
I have always been interested in the problems and opportunities of Scotland, and it would perhaps be right for me to mention to the House that I am planning to pay an official visit to Scotland lasting just over two years. [Laughter.] I should like to spend two years in Scotland. This is an official visit of two days towards the end of August, and among other engagements I shall visit industrial estates in Dundee and South Fife and firms in the Glasgow and Edinburgh areas. I hope to meet members of the Scottish Council, of the Glasgow and Edinburgh Chambers of Commerce, of the Scottish T.U.C. and of the Lord Provost of Dundee's Development of Industry Committee.
I thought that I would clear out of the way one or two matters which have been raised in the course of the debate but which are not central parts of my own speech. I want to deal first with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Britain's place in the production


league table. I know that this is a subject which is often referred to in economic debates. On this occasion the right hon. Gentleman suggested that we ware near the bottom of the production league table. I should like to refer to another league table in which we are at the top.

Mr. Ross: Cost of living.

Mr. Erroll: We are at the top of (the employment table—and that applies to Scotland. The unemployment rate in Scotland compares very well with that of other countries. For example, although unemployment in Scotland during last winter was 4 per cent. one should compare it with 5½ per cent. in. Austria, 8½ per cent. in Belgium, 8½ per cent. in Canada, 10½ per cent. in Denmark, 7½ per cent. in Italy, 6½ per cent. in the United States, and 8 per cent. in the centrally planned country of Yugoslavia. I mention these figures to show that there are other league tables. It may be that the higher rates of unemployment in those countries are partly responsible for the greater rate of increase of production, but I do not intend to debate that tonight. I intended merely to show that taking league tables can lead to some irrelevant arguments. I will not continue any further on that theme.
I want to deal with the phrase "in the pipeline", which has become a convenient form of shorthand in the House for describing jobs which are in prospect and which will arise as a result of I.D.Cs being granted or factories being built. Would hon. Members prefer us to say nothing about what we think the prospects will be in the various areas, particularly those in their own constituencies? If they prefer that we say nothing, we can stop all talk of jobs which have been referred to as "in the pipeline". Personally, I believe it to be right that we as a Government should pass on the fullest possible information of what the firm industrial prospects are both for the benefit of hon. Members and for the benefit of their constituents. Their constituents matter in this as much as do hon. Members. I do not mind being knocked about and laughed at in the House on the subject of the phrase "in the pipeline", or any other crack. What matters is that we should try to

help those who are wanting and waiting for jobs. I think that we should tell them as much as we possibly can.
I have therefore had an inquiry made to see whether the information which we gave in the past about prospects has proved to be reasonably accurate in fulfilment. That is what really matters. I think that if we have been reasonably accurate in the past, it is fair and right that we should go on doing it, but if we have been wildly out it is perhaps better that I should not give any estimates about the future.
We could not possibly look at all types of industrial projects throughout Scotland because there was too much variety, but we had a special investigation into the electrical engineering industries and into all projects new to Scotland since the war which were in operation in 1962. In the case of new industries, the total number of jobs estimated to arise between 1960 and 1962 was 55,000. By May, 1962, the companies concerned were actually employing 51,000 extra workers, with another seven months still to go. In the case of the electrical engineering industry, the total estimated number of extra jobs was 18,300, and by May, 1962, the companies concerned were employing 17,700 workers, still with seven months to go. I mention this to show the House that in fact our estimates of jobs in the pipeline, a phrase which is laughted at, has been remarkably accurate over a period of years, and, unless hon. Members would prefer that we did not make reference to jobs in prospects, I propose to continue to do so.

Mr. Bence: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to jobs in the pipeline running into Scotland, but perhaps he could say how many jobs there were in the pipelines running out?

Mr. Erroll: I could with notice, of course.
A question was put to me by a number of hon. Members about research projects going into Scotland The National Research Development Corporation is a corporation sponsored by the Board of Trade, and we have asked it to bear Scottish firms in mind when placing development contracts. The Corporation had, by mid-May 1962, licensed no fewer


than eight Scottish firms to use its own patents. So far as it lies in our power to direct research projects to Scotland, we are already doing so.

Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the electrical engineering industry. This is one which has recently been in trouble, and only yesterday the secretary of the local A.E.U. asked me to help the Telegraph Condenser Company employees, where 600 people have just been given notice.

Mr. Erroll: I was quoting electrical engineering to show how accurate our estimate have proved to be in practice; no more than that. I should have thought that the House would like to know that the estimates which my predecessor has made have proved to be reasonably accurate in the event. I wish to make no other point than that. If hon. Gentlemen would like it, we will continue to give the best estimates we can, but if they would rather we said nothing about jobs in the pipeline, we will stop the practice.

Mr. Hoy: The right hon. Gentleman should know that we will be delighted to have all the information that we can get, but we should also like information on the lines that my hop. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) suggested—jobs going out the other way. As long as we get the net figures, that is what is important to us, we will be very grateful for them.

Mr. Erroll: I was very interested, not only in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, but in the article he wrote for the Evening Citizen on Friday, 13th July. May I congratulate the right hon. Gentlemen on his ability to write, as well as to speak. [Interruption.] I mean to write as a journalist; I do not mean in any other way. I thought it was a very interesting article, and I thought the right hon. Member would have realised that I was praising his article. As a one-time amateur journalist myself, I can always tell when an article is good and when it makes its points well, and I thought that the phrase would be appreciated by hon. Members opposite. I was particularly interested not in the more tendentious features, which one would expect from a hard hitting

article, but in a paragraph in which the right hon. Gentleman said:
But these are bound to be ineffective unless you have a tough planning Government in London ruthlessly stopping new employers going where there is congestion and over-employment, and generously giving inducements to firms to go where jobs are needed.
I want briefly to inform the House how thoroughly we are already carrying out that policy, but it is a policy not only in which we believe, but on which we act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) referred to the necessity for what he called a tougher industrial certificate policy. We are already as tough, to use the colloquialism, as it is practicable to be. We are at the stage where some refusals result in no development taking place at all and when a firm would rather not expand than have to move part of its production, even with the wide range of Government inducements which are available. We may not like the attitude of certain firms in this matter, but we have to take life as we find it and the fact is that we are being as tough as it is practicable to be.
I have personally studied all 31 of the industrial development certificates granted in London and the South-Eastern area in 1961 for schemes of 50,000 sq. ft. and over in order to see whether we had made any mistakes. I took that figure as that is the sort of size of expansion scheme which we can reckon as normally expected to be mobile. Of those 31 I found not one in which we could have managed to persuade the firm to move, because many of them were tied to the London area.
I shall not go through the list, but I will give examples to give hon. Members an idea of the sort of schemes for which we gave I.D.C.s and to show that they are not mobile and not capable of being taken to Scotland. Four of them were brickworks, which must be sited near clay deposits and their market, which in this case was London. The total extra employment from all four of them was 120 and, in the event, three of the four certificates were not "cashed", or used, and only one, employing 40 people, was proceeded with.
Then there was an industrial development certificate for a printing office for a London evening newspaper, which


could hardly have been moved to Scotland. Even there the extra jobs created were fewer than 300. Another printing and publishing extension of 80,000 sq. ft. was a reorganisation scheme involving no additional employment. A company manufacturing polish and cleaners in the London area applied for an extension of 125,000 sq. ft., but this was a reorganisation scheme of existing production and it created only 23 extra jobs. Another scheme concerned electrical appliances with an extension of 65,000 sq. ft., but it created only 48 additional jobs. A bakery serving London customers was centralising production and had a scheme of 80,000 sq. ft., which sounds a lot but which created no extra jobs.
I am sure that hon. Members have felt, with me, on arriving at London Airport and travelling along the Great West Road to Central London and seeing all the factories, that some of them ought to go to Scotland. Feeling that myself, I considered all these applications to see whether any could have been moved to Scotland, but not one of them could. I have given this information to the House in some detail because I want to assure hon. Members that the policy which we are pursuing is tough and that any scheme which could be moved is moved.
In the last two years, industrial development certificates for the whole of Great Britain have provided only 217,000 extra jobs for men and women and of those 26,000 were for Scotland and 191,000 for England and Wales. A great deal of the extra employment which arises comes from extensions inside existing premises which do not require additional building. It is only when a firm wishes to rebuild or build a substantial extension that it comes within our net.
The big extensions and expansions, such as those which took place in the motor car industry in 1960, tend to be cyclical in character. Extensions or subsidiaries having been planned in 1960, there is then a period in which the extensions are digested, so to speak, and in which the firms are in no mood for any further extensions. This has occurred in a wide range of industry and at the moment such investment is running a little below the record

levels of the last two years, and therefore there are not so many expansion schemes coming forward at present which we could steer towards Scotland, or to that other important area, the North-East Coast, which is to be debated on Monday evening.

Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman has given a depressing picture of the rate of industrial development, which does not surprise me. But will he now tell us what he proposes to do to reduce the rate of unemployment in Scotland and the rate of migration from Scotland?

Mr. Erroll: Members opposite must decide whether they want to spend the short time at my disposal in interrupting me or hearing what I have to say. I asked for only twenty-five minutes because hon. Members had asked for under fifteen minutes each, and I thought that I should therefore keep my speech short as well.
This is not only a matter of steering industry to Scotland. There is also the importance of the expanding Scottish firms. Those which are situated in development districts are entitled to, and do apply for, the full range of financial and other inducements available under the Local Employment Act, 1960.
Some of these growths are very dramatic. I do not want to weary the House with a long catalogue, but some expansions of existing Scottish firms are most impressive. For instance, there is Burroughs Machines, Ltd., which employed 330 people in 1950 and now employs 3,600 in Strathleven and Cumbernauld. A. F. Stoddard, Ltd., had 1,300 employees in 1947 and now employs 2,000 people at Johnstone. Pringle of Scotland, Ltd., knitwear manufacturers, which employed 650 people in 1949, now employs 1,400 at Hawick. All these companies and many others are continuing to expand and to provide further employment. I am sorry that, in the short time left to me, I cannot deal with the question of knitwear raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson).

Mr. Willis: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us now what he is going to do about more jobs?

Mr. Erroll: I am coming to that. In view of the likely opportunities which are arising, and which continually arise, I have recently reviewed the organisation within the Board of Trade to ensure that it is as efficient as it can be. In addition to the staff at headquarters in London, each regional controller is in touch with industry all the time and has been asked to ensure that he learns as soon as possible of any firm or enterprise of any size which is likely to expand and which might become a project steerable to Scotland or to other development districts. We begin confidential discussions with every firm about its expansion plans as soon as it is ready to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) referred to his experiences in the United States. He told me that he would be unable to be here for my reply, but I want to refer to what he said. Although some American firms in his experience may prefer the inducements of continental countries, the fact remains that we succeed in attracting far more investment from the United States than does the rest of Europe put together. We have an extremely efficient Board of Trade office in New York for the express purpose of keeping in contact with industrialists in the United States who may be thinking of setting up subsidiary plants in Britain, and particularly in Scotland. It may interest the House to know that our senior official there is himself a Scotsman and is very keen to see the industrial revival of Scotland.
The Leader of the Opposition said we should take into account future colliery closures in bringing new jobs to Scotland. We do that already, particularly when deciding upon development districts. This is the first step in the process. We maintain the closest touch with the National Coal Board so that we know as far as possible what its plans for colliery closures are likely to be, and we take this into account in deciding what new development districts should be created or what districts should be taken off the lists, the need for additional employment being no longer necessary. We also take into account the possible closure of railway workshops or old shipyards and so on.
We have been advised by various hon. Members that inducements should be greater or should be fixed.
Naturally, everybody likes to be certain from the outset what he will get, but —and we have plenty of proof of this— people also like the flexibility of our arrangements for assistance which can be adapted to suit each project and the way it develops. In practice, we give firms a pretty clear idea of what we can do for them, and in my experience, so long as they know the broad outline, they prefer the final offer when their own plans are more precise.
This is part and parcel of the flexibility which we have introduced into our administration. We and B.O.T.A.C. try to fit the assistance to the particular needs of each case, having in mind where it is to be situated, the type of employment it will give, the financial background of the firm and all the other considerations. I have studied the suggestion made by the Toothill Committee, and I know that the Scottish Council has made certain representations to my right hon. Friend. I have undertaken to look at both those with him, but I believe that the variety and flexibility of the inducements which we can offer are powerfud aids towards steering new forms of industry to Scotland.
As an example of that, the average cost of each job provided in Great Britain is about £900. But in Scotland the average is over £1,400 per job. Would Scotland really prefer that it should be a flat rate at the lower level, or would the House of Commons, which must have regard to public expenditure, prefer that the rate should be a flat £1,400 per job and see a greater expenditure of public money on this desirable object than is absolutely necessary? I am talking about money spent. Some of the money is lent above the line and all has to be met out of what the taxpayers provide in the current year. From the point of view of the taxpayer, it is money to be found this year. It may come back in the years to come, but it has to be found now and not in ten years.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith made great play with the Labour Party Pamphlet Signposts For The Sixties. He did not point out that in that document the Labour Party threatened to nationalise any firm in


receipt of State aid. Are these firms to be exempt, or are they to be nationalised if they receive State aid? This is no great inducement to industry.

Mr. Hoy: Unlike the Minister, I am delighted to answer questions. In our document Signposts For The Sixties, we made it quite clear that we were willing to go into partnership even with private industry to exploit scientific and industrial research. We were prepared to be partners, but if private industry failed to come in, obviously it would be the responsibility of the Government to set up a State factory of their own.

Mr. Erroll: Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always saying what they are going to do. In the 2¼ years during which the 1960 Act has been in force we have offered assistance amounting to £73 million to provide an extra 82,000 jobs throughout Britain. Of this, over £43 million, or 60 per cent., is to be spent in Scotland to provide 32,000 jobs Let

us see how this compares with the period 1945–51. Throughout this period the offers made under comparable powers of B.O.T.A.C. and accepted throughout Britain amounted to £4·8 million, or £800,000 per annum. This compares with the current annual rate of over £18 million for Britain which the present Government are making available. Scotland alone is now being offered B.O.T.A.C. assistance at a rate fifteen times greater than the Labour Government thought fit to offer the whole country during their period of office.

The Government are determined that Scotland shall have an assured place in the expanding economy of Britain. I therefore ask the House to support the Government's forward-looking and practical policy for Scotland.

Question put, That "£7,078,200" stand part of the Resolution:—

The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 176.

Division No. 250.]
AYES
[9.30 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hiley, Joseph


Allason, James
Dance, James
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hill, Mrs. Evelyn (Wythenshawe)


Atkins, Humphrey
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Hill, J. E. B. (S, Norfolk)


Barber, Anthony
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hirst, Geoffrey


Barlow, Sir John
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hocking, Philip N.


Barter, John
Doughty, Charles
Holland, Philip


Batsford, Brian
Drayson, G. B.
Hollingworth, John


Bell, Ronald
du Cann, Edward
Hopkins, Alan


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Duncan, Sir James
Hornby, R. P.


Berkeley, Humphry
Eden, John
Horneby-Smith, Rt Hon. Dame P.


Biffen, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Bingham, R. M.
Elliott,R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Bishop, F. P.
Emery, Peter
Hughes-Young, Michael


Black, Sir Cyril
Errington, Sir Eric
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Bossom, Clive
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Bourne-Arton, A.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Box, Donald
Fell, Anthony
Iremonger, T. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Finlay, Graeme
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Fisher, Nigel
James, David


Brooman-White, R.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jennings, J. C.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Foster, John
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Fraser,Rt.Hon.Hugh(Stafford&amp;Stone)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bryan, Paul
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Johnson, Eric Geoffrey


Buck, Antony
Freeth, Denzil
Kerance, Cdr. J. S.


Bullard, Denys
Gardner, Edward
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Gilmour, Sir John
Kirk, Peter


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Kitson, Timothy


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Lagden, Godfrey


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)



Cary, Sir Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Channon, H. P. G.
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Chataway, Christopher
Green, Alan
Leather, Sir Edwin


Cleaver, Leonard
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Leburn, Gilmour


Cole, Norman
Gurden, Harold
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Collard, Richard
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lilley, F. J. P.


Cooke, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Lindsay, Sir Martin


Cooper, A. E.
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Corfield, F. V.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'field)


Coulson, Michael
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Longden, Gilbert


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Loveys, Walter H.


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hastings, Stephen
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Critchley, Julian
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Cunningham, Knox
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
McLaren, Martin


Curran, Charles
Hendry, Forbes
McLoughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Currie, G. B. H.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John




Mclean, Neil (Inverness)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Studholme, Sir Henry


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Summers, Sir Spencer


McMaster, Stanley R.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Tapsell, Peter


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Prior, J. M. L.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Maddan, Martin
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Maginnis, John E.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Pym, Francis
Thornton-Kemsley, sir Colin


Marten, Neil
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Cordon


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Rawlinson, Peter
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Mawby, Ray
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maxwell-Hyslop, R.J.
Rees, Hugh
Vane, W. M. F.


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Mills, Stratton
Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Miscampbell, Norman
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Ridsdale, Julian
Walder, David


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Walker, Peter


Morgan, William
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
wall, Patrick


Morrison, John
Roots, William
Webster, David


Neave, Airey
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
St. Clair, M.
Whitelaw, William


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Sharples, Richard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Shaw, M.
Wise, A. R.


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Shepherd, William
Woodhouse, C. M.


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Woodnutt, Mark


Peel, John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
woollam, John


Percival, Ian
Smithers, Peter
Woreley, Marcus


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John



Pitman, Sir James
Stevens, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pitt, Miss Edith
Stodart. J. A.
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Pott, Percivall
Storey, Sir Samuel
Mr. Gordon Campbell.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Albu, Austen
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gooch, E. G.
McLeavy, Frank


Awbery, Stan
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Gourlay, Harry
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Baird, John
Greenwood, Anthony
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Grey, Charles
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Beaney, Alan
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Manuel Archie


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mapp, Charles


Bence, Cyril
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Marsh, Richard


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Gunter, Ray
Mayhew, Christopher


Benson, Sir George
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mendelson, J. J.


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Millan, Bruce


Blyton, William
Hannan, William
Milne, Edward


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Harper, Joseph
Monslow, Walter


Bowden, Rt. Hn.H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Moody, A. S.


Bowles, Frank
Hayman, F. H.
Morris, John


Boyden, James
Healey, Denis
Moyle, Arthur


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegls)
Mulley, Frederick


Bardley, Tom
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hill, J.(Midlothian)
Oliver, G.H.


Brewis, John
Hilton, A. V.
Oram, A. E.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Holman, Percy



Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hooson, H. E.
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Houghton, Douglas
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hoy, James H.
Parker, John


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Emrys (S, Ayrshire)
Pavitt, Laurence


Cliffe, Michael
Hunter, A. E.
Peart, Frederick


Crosland, Anthony
Hynd, H.(Accrington)
Pentland, Norman


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Dalyell, Tam
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Popplewell, Ernest


Darling, George
Janner, Sir Barnett
Prentice, R. E.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Proctor, W. T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Rankin, John


Deer, George




Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Elwyn (Burnley)
Redhead, E. C.


Dempsey, James
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Reid, William


Diamond, John
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Reynolds, G. W.


Driberg, Tom
Kelley, Richard
Rhodes, H.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Kenyon, Clifford
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
King, Dr. Horace
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Lawson, George
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Evans, Albert
Ledger, Ron
Rogers, G. H, R. (Kensington, N.)


Finch, Harold
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Ross, William


Fitch, Alan
Lipton, Marcus
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Fletcher, Eric
Lubbock, Eric
Short, Edward


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Forman, J. C.
MacDermot, Niall
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mclnnes, James
Skeffington, Arthur







Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Taverns, D.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Small, William
Thompson, Or. Alan (Dunfermllne)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Snow, Julian
Thornton, Ernest
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Steele, Thomas
Wainwright, Edwin
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Warbey, William
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Storehouse, John
Whitlock, William



Stones, William
Wigg, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Willey, Frederick
Mr. McCann.


Swingler, Stephen
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

It being after half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution under consideration.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Classes I to XI of the Civil Estimates, the Ministry of Defence Estimate, the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates, the Air Estimates, and of Navy, Army and Air Services (Expenditure).

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1962–3

CLASS I

GOVERNMENT AND EXCHEQUER

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class I of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS II

COMMONWEALTH AND FOREIGN

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class II of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS III

HOME AND JUSTICE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class III of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS IV

INDUSTRY, TRADE AND TRANSPORT

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class IV of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS V

AGRICULTURE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class V of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS VI

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, HOUSING AND SOCIAL SERVICES

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VI of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS VII

UNIVERSITIES AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VII of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS VIII

MUSEUMS, GALLERIES AND THE ARTS

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VIII of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS IX

PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND COMMON GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IX of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS X

SMALLER PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class X of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS XI

MISCELLANEOUS

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class XI of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1962–63

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Ministry of Defence Estimate,

put and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Navy Estimates,

put and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Army Estimates,

put and agreed to.

AIR ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Air Estimates,

put and agreed to.

NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1960–61

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution relating to Navy Expenditure, 1960–61,

put and agreed to.

ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1960–61

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution relating to Army Expenditure, 1960–61,

put and agreed to.

AIR EXPENDITURE, 1960–61

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution relating to Air Expenditure, 1960–61,

put and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [18th July]

Resolution reported,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, the sum of £3,402,234,997 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Barber.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION)

Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, and to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 136].

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — SMALL FARMER SCHEME

9.48 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): I beg to move,
That the Small Farmer (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.
With your' permission, Mr. Speaker, I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we dealt at the same time with the Small Farmers (Scotland) Scheme, as both cover the same ground.

Mr. Speaker: That would be convenient.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The purpose of the Schemes is to implement the decision taken at the last annual price review to extend the Small Farmer Scheme to farm businesses with labour requirements of between 450 and 500 standard man-days and to effect several small amendments.
As the House knows, eligible farms are those which satisfy two tests relating to their size. One is the acreage of the farm and the other concerns the standard labour requirements. It is necessary to have both these tests because acreage alone is no test of the size of the farmer's business. Standard labour requirements are the annual requirements of manual labour needed, on average, for the production of crops and livestock with an addition for essential farm maintenance and other necessary tasks. These requirements are expressed in terms of "standard man-days" per acre of crops or per head of livestock, which represents eight hours' manual work for an adult male worker under average conditions.
At present eligible farm businesses must embrace not less than 20 acres of crops and grass. They must also have labour requirements of not more than 450 standard man-days on application and not less than 250 standard man-days on application or a potential of 275 on completion of a plan. Under the new Scheme the minimum and maximum acreage limits of 20 and 100 acres will remain unchanged, but the upper man-day limits will be raised from 450 to 500. It is estimated that this change will bring within the scope of the Schemes a fur-

ther 13,000 small farmers and with a reasonable response we would expect to pay in grant about £2½ million in the first full year of operation.
The total additional amount spread over the life of the Schemes is expected to be about £10 million for the United Kingdom. This Statutory Instrument extends the Scheme for applications until the end of July, 1967, and will bring the total of eligible farmers up to 79,000, an increase of about 20 per cent. The House will be interested to hear something about the progress of the scheme so far. Although it is too early to make an overall judgment because it has not been running for very long, I can confidently say that the scheme has helped a great number of deserving small farmers.
There has been an excellent response from farmers. By 31st May, 1962, some 41,000 farm business plans had been approved in the United Kingdom and it is estimated that when completed these plans will receive a total of over £29 million in grants and by 31st May £13 million of this had already been paid. The response to this Scheme has been good.
Some 63 per cent. of the estimated number of eligible farms already have approved farm business plans. The great majority of them are proceeding satisfactorily and should be properly fulfilled. Some are exceeding our expectations and so far only about 6 per cent. of farm business plans have been cancelled. The main reasons for these cancellations have been changes in the occupancy of farms, ill health, retirement and death of the farmer. There have, of course, been a small number of cases where the farmer has not carried out his work properly or has lost interest, but these represent a very small minority. It can be taken that the scheme is achieving what it was designed to do, to increase the efficiency and profitability of a large number of small farm business and render them more prosperous in conditions of increased and increasing competition.
It may be said that the Scheme will result in increased production of milk, livestock and livestock products at a time when these are not really wanted, but this increase is likely to be relatively small compared with total production in


this country. The really important point is that the Scheme helps to reduce unit cost production and so makes the small farmer more efficient and competitive. When we look at these farms we are not trying to impose national policy for production but to help the farmer to work out a business plan which will establish the farm on a profitable basis.
The House will no doubt wish to know why we have decided to extend the Scheme by raising the standard man-day limits. My right hon. Friend fell that there was a strong case for this. When the existing Scheme started we were not able to bring in everyone we wanted because there was a limit to the number of cases which could be handled by the N.A.A.S. and our technical officers. We are now in a position to include this further group who have already shown a capacity to work their farms by the fact that they have been over the 450 man-day limit and we are now bringing them into the Scheme.
Hon. Members may wonder why we have decided to introduce a new Scheme to make an apparently simple alteration to the man-day limit. We have taken the opportunity of doing this because the existing Scheme can be extended only by Statutory Instrument. A change of this kind cannot be made by an ordinary administrative ruling.
As we had to proceed by Statutory Instrument, we were faced with three possible ways of making the change. We could have amended the present Scheme; we could have introduced a separate Scheme to run parallel with the existing one now in force; or we could have replaced the existing Scheme by a new Scheme to cover those eligible under the old Scheme and those who may wish to become eligible under the new Scheme.
We did not adopt the first method of doing this because the existing Scheme ends on 18th February, 1964, and we thought that it would be unfair to farmers on holdings between 450 and 500 standard man-days to give them only 18 months in which to prepare and submit their plans, whereas others who had already benefited had five years to prepare their plans.
The second course would have involved running two Schemes side by side and it might have caused confusion among farmers to know under which Scheme to apply, and if they applied for the wrong one under the 18 months period they might have been debarred by Statute.
The third course, free from all these objections, was the one we decided to adopt. The only important difference between this Scheme and the existing Scheme is that farms on which there is an uncompleted improvement Scheme under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts, 1946 to 1956, will no longer be excluded from assistance under the Small Farmer Scheme. As a result, some further 250 small farmers will now become eligible.
We originally excluded these people because there seemed to be a danger that we might pay double grant on items included in both a farm business plan and a livestock rearing improvement scheme. However, we are now satisfied that we can prevent double grants by administrative moans without this sweeping prohibition and we feel that the ban should be lifted now so that these people will be able to benefit if they so wish. Except for the changes which I have mentioned and a few minor consequential alterations, the Scheme before the House now is in all respects the same as the existing Scheme.
The Schemes then, the one for England and Wales and Northern Ireland and the other for Scotland, will be the second under the Agriculture (Small Farmers) Act, 1959. We propose that they should come into operation on 1st August. The last date for approving farm business plans under the existing Schemes will be 31st July this year. All approvals after that date will be under the new Schemes. This does not mean that we are revoking the existing plans since payments on them will continue for about 5 years, only that the old Schemes will toe closed so far as new applicants are concerned.
Finally, I should like to repeat that in our view the Small Farmer Schemes are achieving their objects. We think that it is desirable that we should now extend their benefits to a class of farmer who had hitherto been excluded from getting this benefit because of the rather


higher level of stocking and cropping which he has had on his farm owing to his own efforts and industry. These people will be now included in the new Schemes. I hope, therefore, that the House will approve the two new Schemes.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on bis appointment. I am sorry that I missed has maiden speech at the Dispatch Box on the Adjournment the other night, but this is really his baptism in a debate which, though not a major debate, is an important one affecting the small farmer. I wish him luck in his new position. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Ever since I have been watching agriculture, not only from the Front Bench but as a back bencher, I have known three Parliamentary Secretaries, the right hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) and the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane). The Government have been extremely fortunate in the quality and calibre of their Parliamentary Secretaries. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is a young man in the House of Commons, will live up to that reputation, and I wish him success in what I regard as the very important job of looking after farming interests and defending agriculture.
We do not oppose this extension of the Small Farmer Scheme. We welcome it. The Explanatory Note at the back of the Statutory Instrument gives in detail a fair description of its purpose. It is proposed to extend the upper limit of eligibility making it 500 standard man-days instead of 450. Also, approval of a plan is no longer prohibited where a livestock rearing land improvement scheme is being carried out. This is sensible, and we accept it.
Unfortunately, the acreage limit is to remain the same, still 20 to 100 acres. I understand that this was the subject of criticism, not in any negative sense, by the farmers' unions concerned as far back as 1960 when there were discussions on the Price Review. I still feel that, in spite of what I gather is the Government's view, there could have been an extension by bringing down the lower acreage limit from 20 to, say, 15

acres, and I hope that whoever is to reply will offer an explanation.
The farm business grant remains the same at £6 per acre on the whole farm, excluding rough grazing, and the maximum is to be £360. Also, the field husbandry grants are to be the same for the various operations, the limit still being £1,000. We accept this and, broadly, we agree with the details, but, as I say, I wish that there had been a lowering of the acreage limit in order to bring more farmers within the benefit of the Scheme. It is no secret that this matter was raised again in discussions this year, and I still wonder why the limit has not been lowered to 15 acres.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the acreage limits remained the same because the National Agricultural Advisory Service would be too occupied, that the officers would have quite a lot of work to do and that it would be too much for them if we lowered the limit. I am informed that there has been a slowing down in the number of applications during the past year and that the numbers involved in a reduction of the lower acreage limit could be catered for. However, there may be a reason for what the Government have done, and I look forward to hearing that explanation.
The raising of the maximum labour requirement from 450 to 500 standard man-days and the removal of the ban on farms where livestock rearing land improvement schemes are being carried out are, I think, acceptable and, indeed, this advice may have been the advice given to the Government by those concerned. The Minister gave some rather pleasing figures. I was informed that in 1961—I am open to correction—37,500 farm business schemes had been approved and a further 19,000 were under consideration. I understand that 22,000 plans were accepted or approved under the supplementary Scheme.
I was not sure about the figure given by the Parliamentary Secretary. How many people do the Government expect to take advantage of the Scheme in this five-year period? Many of my hon. Friends would like to know the amount of money which will be made available. I should like to know how much the Government estimate will be given to


the small farmers, not only in respect of the business scheme, but also in respect of the production side, the husbandry grants given under Schedule 1.
I am not harping about this. I believe that this will be money well spent, and I am anxious to help the small farmers. I am sure that most hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious to do that. I reject the view that the small farmer should be deliberately squeezed out because of economic and financial policy. I reject the concept unfortunately held by many people in the agricultural world that the small fanner has no place in our economic life. I say this to many hon. Members on both sides who, I know, have interests in farming but who may not in certain circumstances be favourably disposed to the small farmers.
I shall not repeat the many figures which I have here, but obviously the pattern of our economy, certainly that in England and Wales, is a small farmer economy. The big farmers are important, but they can look after themselves. In the end, it is the small farmer who produces and who in many areas looks after the land and countryside and plays an important part in our economy, often using the labour of his wife and other members of his family.
I would reject any policy on the part of any Government—I say this not merely about a Conservative Government but about any Government—seeking deliberately to squeeze out the small farmer. It may be that because of economic events certain small farmers find it necessary to combine or cooperate, but I believe that they have a major contribution to make to our life, not only in the economic sense, but, if I may use a hackneyed term, for sociological reasons. I say that realising that there are many small farmers in my constituency in the rural areas of Cumberland.
I am anxious for this Scheme to succeed. I accept that it is a constructive effort to help many small men who would in normal economic circumstances be squeezed out of business. Any attempt by any Government deliberately to squeeze the small farmer out of business would be resented not only by me

but, I hope, by hon. Members on both sides interested in agriculture.
What are the stark facts? Here, no doubt, I shall indulge in controversy. Many small farmers are having a difficult time. Why? The Parliamentary Secretary must know the answer to that Indeed, many of his hon Friends can tell him the answer. It is as a result of Government agricultural policy.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we are concerned with these two Schemes and not with general agricultural policy.

Mr. Peart: I accept that we must not get involved in too general a debate. It is important, however, that we put the Scheme in perspective. After all, the purpose of it is to help the small farmers who are in difficulties. It must, therefore, be relevant to my argument to point out the difficulties of the small farmers, otherwise we shall debate the Scheme in a vacuum. We must debate its relation to the realities of our agricultural system.
The simple fact is that small farmers are facing difficulties because of Government policy. It may well be that because they know this, the Government have to introduce this Small Farmer Scheme.

Mr. Robert Mathew: Mr. Robert Mathew (Honiton) rose—

Mr. Peart: I am delighted to give way to a European.

Mr. Mathew: The whole tenure of what the hon. Member has been saying is that it is Government action in this country and in other countries that causes difficulties for small farmers. That is quite contrary to the proposal that is now before the House. It is the economic facts of life that made it difficult for small farmers to make a living throughout the whole—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am afraid that that interruption would tempt the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who has the Floor, to go outside the proper scope of the debate.

Mr. Peart: It would tempt me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because economic events are often determined by political decisions in the House of Commons.


Political decisions by the Government have created in agriculture difficulties for the small farmer. Therefore, it is necessary to have a Scheme of this kind.
I would expect the support of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew), because he represents a rural constituency, possibly similar to mine, with small fanners, who undoubtedly will benefit by a scheme of this kind. By enabling State aid to be given, it will help the farmer and buttress him against the economic forces which the hon. Member has mentioned. I would sympathise with the hon. Member had he been a Liberal laissez-faire man, as, I suspect, in other spheres he is, but he should welcome State intervention with a Small Farmer Scheme to protect the small farmer who faces difficulties.
I am anxious that the Scheme shall succeed. The reasons for it are that, over a period of 10 years, there has been a decline in the net farm incomes of farmers in terms of purchasing power. The small farmer therefore welcomes the Scheme. The various farm organisations, who are anxious to help it in every way, recognise that the State must intervene.
I am merely putting a political argument which I consider to be valid. This is an agricultural debate on the position of the small farmer. The tragedy is that we have to introduce a Scheme of this kind because economic events have forced the small farmer into serious difficulty. Government policy has done this. At the same time, we accept that the purpose of any agricultural Scheme which we are discussing tonight must be to increase the efficiency of agriculture.
When we discuss the place of the small farmer in a Scheme of this kind in our economy, it is accepted that the cost factors of farm production have risen faster than the prices of most farm commodities. This has created a special problem for the small farmer. That is why it is essential that we should provide a special Scheme to protect him from the economic circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member for Honiton.
There has been what we term a cost-price squeeze. The only way to challenge it is by a continued reduction in unit costs. This is difficult for a small

farmer. The remedy is to increase output relative to fixed costs. That is partly why we need a Scheme of this kind and why we on the Opposition side welcome what has been said by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.
Every hon. Member, from whichever part of the country he comes, knows that the dilemma is that for the small farmer any increase in livestock production from a small dairy or mixed farm in itself creates problems. Productivity may be increased on larger farms in the selfsame products. Therefore, the competitive position of the small farmer vis-à-vis the large farmer is diminished. That is why we have to give special aid.
I should expect the wholehearted support of every hon. Member opposite to help the small farmer in a situation in which increasingly 'there is competition as against the larger farmer in livestock production, to give merely one example, and in which the small farmer may face extreme difficulties and may in the end go out of farming.
These are facts and they show the need for a Scheme like this. I have some figures to show why we need it. In the south-eastern counties the small farmer needs protection of this kind because other factors are involved. There are amenity demands in respect of farms and farm lands. Rents have been forced up, and costs have been increased—quite unjustifiably in comparison with the agricultural value of 'the land. In the end it is the small farmer who suffers.
I would point also to the suburban milk production by the small farmers in the industrial Pennines. They axe on high-cost holdings. They have been fortunate in the past to be near cities. But that advantage has now been taken away from them. With the development of modern communications and marketing methods, their relative competitive position as against the large farmer does not exist. Take also the upland farmers in the livestock rearing regions of England and Wales. They are small farmers relying mainly on store sheep and cattle. They do not get directly the benefit of guaranteed prices. They are susceptible to heavy market fluctuations.
I have with me the comments of a very distinguished person connected with the Department of Agriculture at the


University College of Wales, Aberystwyth. It is an economic report by D. H. Evans on farming incomes in Wales, 1960–61, giving the labour earnings for farms in Wales of the type about which I am speaking. It describes how many of the small farmers are facing great difficulties. My hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite could give example after example of how some of our small farmers are having an extremely difficult time.
It is no good the Government being complacent. The fact is that over a period of 10 years, through Government policy, the small farmer has come to face increasing difficulties. It is no good the hon. Member for Honiton saying that that is not so. It is not because of the course of economic events; it is due to Government policy over a long period.
I have here some newspaper references to the Price Review. I have, in particular the Farmers' Guardian, a good Northern farming paper. It says:
Imposed review hits at milk, sheep, eggs. Fertiliser cut another blow to small man.
A week later the same newspaper said:
Reaction to price reductions is bitter. Small farms' plight rouses N-W concern.
I speak only for the North-West, where the small farmer is in difficulties. That is why I am anxious to support some protective effort on the part of the Government to relieve the situation. I and my hon. Friends welcome the Small Farmer Scheme, but the tragedy is that at the same time as the Government introduce the scheme they impose a Price Review on the industry which hurts the small farmer.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but that is going beyond the Scheme which we are now debating.

Mr. Peart: I accept, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it would be wrong of me to engage in a Price Review debate. I am arguing that this is the tragedy of the Scheme. The danger is that it could be frustrated because of the Government's economic policy in relation to agriculture. I should have thought that that was reasonable argument. I will not develop it at length, but will mention it only in passing. The Price Review is only one of the factors. I will

not go into details on the whole problem of imports and of the Common Market—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is going further than he is entitled to do, and I am sure that he appreciates that.

Mr. Peart: I know that you are always very courteous, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I would not wish to be out of order.
I would only argue—and I was coming to the end of my argument—that the Common Market wild affect the small farmer, and he is very worried. I am anxious that this Scheme should succeed. I am also anxious that the small farmer should be helped by any co-operative measure of the Government. These are the things which are worrying the small farmer, and it is no good this House being fobbed off by any Scheme of this kind unless it is related to a broad policy which will help the small farmer. It is all very weld saying to the small farmer, "Here is a Small Farmer Scheme", but it must be backed up by a policy which will make certain that the small farmer is not squeezed out because of political or economic decisions taken by the Government.

10.22 p.m.

Sir James Duncan: There is a note on the Order Paper dealing with the Second Report from the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, but the Minister this evening said nothing about it. On reading it now, I find that the explanation by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does not seem to make it any clearer. I think that before we part with this Scheme we ought to have some explanation from the Government as to what the Ministry of Agriculture's long Explanatory Note really means.
At the end of the Scheme applying to England and Wales, the Explanatory Note states that the acreage limit is 20 to 100 acres; but, in the Ministry of Agriculture's explanation to the Statutory Instrument Committee, it is stated:
(f) it follows that the 100 acre limit imposed by the scheme on the day on which a farm business plan is submitted to the Minister for approval is additional to, and not in substitution for, the 150 acre limit imposed by the Act,
I do not know what that means—whether it is to be 250 acres in all or not. I


do not think it means that, but that is the way it reads, and I think that somebody ought to answer before we part with the Scheme.
This sort of slipshod method of producing Schemes of this type is the reason for the original setting up of the Statutory Instruments Committee. The House ought to pay more attention to the Reports of this Committee when it takes the trouble to submit them, and if hon. Members look at the Committee's Reports, they will see the enormous amount of work which the Committee has to do in scrutinising each Statutory Instrument submitted to it. Therefore, when we get a Report like this mentioned on the Order Paper of the House, I think we ought to have some explanation of the Ministerial statement.
The other thing I want to do is to ask how many farms have benefited from the Scheme in Scotland. The Scheme never had a greater appeal in Scotland than in England, but some farms have benefited. There are not very many farms of this category in my constituency, but there are a few. Before we part with the Scottish Scheme, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland might say something about progress in Scotland and future prospects.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: As one who served several years on the Statutory Instruments Committee, I am convinced that it is the duty of the House to take note of memoranda which comes to it from the Committee, and I am grateful that the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) brought to the notice of the House this serious Report from the Committee.
I do not want to reiterate what has been said, but I must say that I, too, am rather puzzled by the first paragraph of the appendix as to whether this Scheme applies to 100 acres and thereafter to another 150 acres, which makes it 250 acres, or whether it applies to 100 acres or 150 acres. On page 3 of the Statutory Instrument Committee's Report, it is explained by the Ministry of Agriculture that any doubt about the matter can be resolved by Section 31 of the Interpretation Act. 1889, which defines a small farm business.
Here we are in the mid-twentieth century being told by the Government that a small farm business can be defined by an Act of 1889. No wonder the captain, having driven his ship on the rocks, is executing the crew. This is a kind of political atavism. Without developing the point further, or making cheap remarks about it, I must emphasise that this is a serious point and that the House deserves a proper explanation of this Scheme in view of the fact that the Statutory Instruments Committee thought it serious enough to draw the attention of the House to this Order. We had the Annual Price Review in February and the British public should have had an agricultural debate.
I welcome this Scheme as a Member for a constituency which is very large and stretches from the uplands of the Leek area to the edge of the Pennines, and I am glad that it is now to apply to some of the higher levels of hill-farming territory. I am glad that the Government can find a formula by means of which there will be no cheating and that this plan will not overlap with others. But there should have been a little vision. A party without vision withers, and the Conservative Party has nearly withered away.
We are told about all kinds of grants in the First Schedule. But why could not the Government have made additional grants for bringing water to some of these districts?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We are restricted to discussing what is in the Order. The hon. Member cannot make suggestions of different provisions.

Mr. Davies: Then I put myself in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The importance to our economy of the small farmer has been made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart). It would be a little unfair to charge the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—whom we congratulate—with saying that there is no interest in the situation of the small farmer, but I ask the Government in future to consider the question of initial acreage.
I wish the Scheme had been applied to the 15-acre farms. Although its name sounds like the national emblem of Wales, my constituency is English, and in Leek and its environs are 3,000 farms,


and nearly 1,500 of them are of 20 acres or less, and 1,500 of them practically will not benefit from the Scheme.
I hope the Government will look again at the Small Farmer Scheme in view of the Common Market. It would be out of order to make this a general debate, although I am tempted to try to do so and I have masses of data and information, but if I were to try to give it now I should be ruled out of order. It would be most unwise of me to arouse your ire, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and so, despite the sad condition in which the Government are at the moment, and the fact that the captain of the ship has gone berserk, I congratulate the remnants of the Government on having introduced—[Interruption.] I am saying it, and I stand by

what I say. I shall say worse than that this weekend when I get out into the country. I wish honestly and squarely to say that I am sure the small farmers will appreciate this, but will the Government see that publicity is given to it in the hill-farming areas, to make them fully aware of the fact that now they can come within the ambit of the Scheme? I think that at this juncture it would be wise of me to sit down, because if I go on speaking I may be out of order.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does the hon. Member, of his charity, feel inclined to welcome this Scheme on behalf of the Liberal Party as well, since none of that party is here?

Mr. Davies: I am no Liberal. Fancy talking to me, a Left-wing Socialist, about Liberals.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Percy Browne: Perhaps I can best follow the other hon. Members and start my speech by joining with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) in congratulating my hon. Friend on his appointment as Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I do so particularly warmly because he is my neighbour and in the past has attacked the Government for their agricultural policy as much as I have. He has strength of character and courage to follow his own line and not merely that which is offered to him.
Secondly, I would draw attention to the fact that there are no Members of the Liberal Party here. I am particularly sorry since I joined with them in signing their Motion calling for a debate on the Price Review.

Mr. Peart: They are not interested in agriculture.

Mr. Browne: Quite right. They are not.
In 1958, when in what I thought was a rather hurried and slipshod way the Government introduced the Small Farmer Scheme, I thought it was, despite certain defects, a good Scheme for two reasons. First, because here there was a real attempt to protect the small farmers against the economic facts of life and the economic pressure of imports into this country, whether it was a natural pressure or brought on by the Government; and also because—as the hon. Member for Workington has hoard me say before, in the debate on a Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken)—I believe that in the small farms in the countryside we have something which is precious and which we want to preserve.
I have certain criticisms I should like to make of this Scheme, having made those general remarks, and I should like to put a possible alternative to my hon. Friend. The first criticism is that it is rigid in fixing the acreage—20 to 100 acres. I said in 1958, and I repeat now, that it has always seemed to me that to a large extent the profitability of a hold-

ing depends on the type of land being farmed, and not on the actual size of the farm. Therefore, I regret that in altering this Scheme, particularly after reading, as I know my hon. Friend has, the report on the scale of fanning enterprises by Professor Zuckerman and others, there has been no increase in the acreage, up to 150. If anybody takes the trouble to read that report, he will find that within these acreage limits of 20 to 150 the average net income over the past three years was about £615 per farm, which does not allow very much for the farmer's labour and so on.
I welcome the increase in man-days, because up to now the Scheme has often prevented the competent fanner from getting help. It might be asked why he should get help, because the object is to help the farmer who is not efficient, but I think that there is a difference between competence and efficiency. The competent farmer who may not have the right acreage of land and is therefore not efficient is the man that we want to help, and in this acreage group of 20 to 100 acres we often find a competent fanner who is just over the man-day limit.
The Scheme has helped a large number of younger men to find a place on the farming ladder, and for this reason it is to be particularly welcomed. It is to be broadly welcomed because it is keeping our social structure. We are dealing with a large sum of money—£2½ million in one year, and my hon. Friend said that £10 million would probably be used in this Scheme, with 13,000 farms eligible for help. Is it right to spend this sum of money in continuing to keep these holdings divided? Would not it be better, whilst enabling individual farmers to work on their own farms, to encourage them to get together to cushion themselves against the economic circumstances of today? Last year— and I hope that this is in order—my right hon. Friend introduced a very worth -while grant. This was the machinery syndicate grant. It was a great help to small farmers who are included in this Scheme that we are discussing. I had hoped that this year my right hon. Friend would continue this process, and I believe that in the long term—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is getting outwith the Scheme that we are debating.

Mr. Browne: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. This is a result of the failure of the Government or the Opposition to find time to debate the Annual Price Review. Perhaps I might finish my sentence, otherwise it will not make sense. Would not this money be better employed if it were used to increase co-operation between farmers?
We welcome the Scheme and hope that as many farmers as possible will benefit from it. I know from many farmers in my constituency, and as a farmer myself, what wonderful work the N.A.A.S. has done in administering the Small Farmer Scheme which was dropped on its plate at short notice. It was not really geared to it, but it did wonderful work in enabling more than 50,000 farmers to take part in it, and it now has to start with another group. I am sure that it will do it well, and that we wish it well. Finally, I am sure that we wish my hon. Friend well in his new job.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: I am delighted to take part in this debate, as one who had a small part in forming the union in Wales, which looks after the interests of small farmers. I regret that we have not had a debate on the Price Review. I join in the criticism of the Members of the Liberal Party, who are conspicuous by their absence, although they derived tremendous publicity for the fact that they put down a Motion criticising both the Government and the Opposition for failing to arrange to have a debate on such an important subject as agriculture. Nevertheless, having regard to the fact that every county branch of the N.F.U. in Wales passed a vote of no confidence in the policy of the Minister of Agriculture, a debate on the Price Review would have been invaluable.
Small farmers are getting fewer in number every year, and some reconstruction of the organisation is inevitable—but what will this Scheme achieve? Will it stave off the imminent collapse of a number of small fanners in the United Kingdom, and in Wales in particular? There are 3,500 fewer farms in Wales than there were in 1947, and most of the losses have been small farms.
This Scheme applies only to those small farmers who have what are called viable farms; it does not help the smallest farms, of under 20 acres. I do not share the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) about extending this Scheme to a lower limit, although I will not go into that aspect of the matter now. I regard the basic problem as being the not-so-small farm on poor land. That is probably a far more difficult problem to tackle. I would rather have raised the limit, because the criterion of acreage—20–100—is not a very good one.

Mr. Peart: I hope that I have not been misunderstood about the lower limit. I agree with my hon. Friend about that.

Mr. Morris: I thank my hon. Friend for that assurance. My anxiety is about the upper and not the lower limit. I know farms which are unable to benefit from the Scheme because, although they are within the acreage limits, they are good farms and produce a considerable quantity of food. They do not need the Scheme. But there are marginal farms of slightly over 100 acres—up to 150 acres—which could benefit from this sort of Scheme.
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Workington say that he rejected completely the suggestion that the small farmer should be squeezed out. I am glad that that is the official policy of my party, and that it has been reiterated tonight. Statements to the contrary were made in the debate in another place on 13th February, by some whom we know very well. I am glad that this statement has been made tonight and that hon. Members on this side of the House are anxious to do everything possible to preserve the small farmer.
But what is the real state of the small farmer today? He is tied to the milk cheque, and in view of the Minister's statement today that the object of the Scheme was to provide a better living for the small fanner, I wonder whether, even though there might be a marginal increase in some products—an increase which is undesirable in view of the state of the agricultural economy—the Scheme will really succeed in providing that better living.
We must remember that one of his main products is milk, and that the basic return to the small farmer is 2½d. a gallon less than it was in 1955. All the experts state that the profitability of milk has fallen from 11d. a gallon to 7d. a gallon for the average farm, and for the farm with higher costs the loss must be greater. In view of the fact that milk production has risen by 23 per cent. in in the last few years and that the profitability has fallen, we are entitled to ask where the small farmer stands in relation to this Scheme.
Obviously there are some small farms which are within the acreage limits of 20 to 100 acres and within the man-days limitation. But the farmers have not been able to qualify because their farms are not viable. Perhaps we might be told how many farms have been refused a grant under those circumstances. There are small farms in Wales which do not produce an income for the fanner equivalent to the wages of a farm worker and for that reason do not qualify for a grant under this Scheme. If we could be given figures regarding such farms we should be able to appreciate the difficulties experienced by a substantial section of the farming community.
I will not weary the House with figures about the profitability of small farms, but figures which have been given from time to time indicate that small farmers are having a difficult time. In answer to a Question from an hon. Member opposite, it was stated that according to a survey the average income of a marginal farm was £591 and for a farm of less than 50 acres it was £584. Those are very low figures. These incomes must cover the labour of the farmer and his wife and the provision of capital, so the net incomes of many small farmers must be very low.
Tribute has been paid to the officers of the National Agricultural Advisory Service who had to shoulder a considerable burden without much warning when the Scheme was instituted. A great deal of the time of the officers has been taken up with preparing plans for its operation, and one wonders how much time these officers are able to devote to their original functions. It was suggested in the Caine Report that there should be a 25 per cent. increase in the number of these officers, and I should like to know

whether the Minister is satisfied that there are sufficient officers to perform the many duties which they are called on to fulfill.

10.47 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel R. G. Grosvenor: I appreciate that the scope of this debate is narrow and small; I will therefore endeavour to remain within the limit of narrow and discuss small. As the representative of a Northern Ireland constituency where there are a great many small farmers, I welcome the Scheme. One welcomes any scheme which will help the small farmer. He is the backbone of our country.
There will always be an argument about the limits of a farm, whether it be 19½ acres or 100¼ acres. Such debates have been going on for hundreds of years. We cannot be satisfied by limits, but it is necessary to accept an arbitrary judgment, and the acre is the measure accepted in this country. I do not think that we need spend much time arguing about a rod, pole or perch. If a farmer is short of a certain small area of ground, it is always possible for him to acquire a small portion in order to make his holding up to the right limit to qualify under the Scheme. That has been my experience.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) repeated several times that farmers are facing difficulties. I cannot remember how many times the hon. Gentleman repeated that. Being a farmer, I am always facing difficulties, and many hon. Members are probably doing the same. It is curious that although farmers are always facing difficulties they seem to thrive on them. They thrive to the extent that a difficulty is a challenge which a farmer is always prepared to accept, a challenge not only from the Government of the day but from the elements. Farmers, being very virile and powerful people, are prepared to accept challenges. They survive them. That is a fair answer to the hon. Gentleman's remark.

Mr. Peart: Surely the hon. and gallant Member accepts that if events go too far in the sense of a bad economic difficulty, as they did at one period in British history, farmers become bankrupt. There is a grave danger that many small


farmers, facing precisely these difficulties, will do that again. We want to avoid that.

Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor: I agree entirely. Nobody wants anyone to go bankrupt. I was saying that farmers have faced difficulties in the past. They are a strong and virile race and they will face difficulties in the future in the same way as they are facing difficulties today. No one suggests that we want to go through a period such as that we went through in the 1920s when farmers were down about as low as any other member of the community. I hope that that situation will not arise either today or in the future.
I have some questions for my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, whose very well delivered speech I was delighted to hear. He referred to the 1946 and 1956 Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts. This matter is of considerable importance to my country, and I think to everybody else. The area of farming land is diminishing all the time and the more what used to be called marginal land but which we are not allowed to call that any more is used the better. I refer to the land running up the hill. Can my hon. Friend give us any information about that? How long are these arrangements likely to last? Are they popular in the Ministry? It applies particularly to my country because we have a great deal of what I should still like to call marginal land which could be benefited enormously by these schemes and would be very much more productive than they are today. If my hon. Friend could give me any information on that—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon and gallant Member will not ask for too much information on that, because it would be difficult to give it without the Minister getting out of order.

Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I apologise for mentioning that. I should not have done so if my hon. Friend had not mentioned it. He referred to these two Acts specifically. I had hoped that we might have some information on the point.
Much has been said in favour of the small farmer. I hope that a great deal more will be said in his favour. Northern Ireland relies on small farmers. Theirs is our biggest industry and we do everything we can to support them.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: I, too, wish the Joint Parliamentary Secretary well in his new job. In doing so, I pay tribute to his predecessor, who was always one of the most courteous and helpful of people on the Front Bench opposite with whom I have had anything to do.
As you have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is most difficult to keep in order in this debate. I have never taken part in one in which it was more difficult to keep in order. Perhaps, you will be as lenient with me as with others. Before going further, I should like to put in a word for the poor Liberals. We must face the facts.

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend should remember that in the rural areas the Liberal Party has always declared that it defends the small farmer. That is not true. Tonight, for the first time this Session, we are debating a major scheme for assisting the small fanner and the Liberals are conspicuous by their absence.

Mr. Mackie: I endorse the point made by my hon. Friend. I am always classified as a large farmer. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) might perhaps classify me as among the company of those on both sides of the House—although I do not want to put words in his mouth—who would like to do away with the small farmer and not help him to as much as my hon. Friend would like to do. Nothing is further from the truth. I want to help the small farmer in the only way in which I think he can be helped—that is to make him big. Unless we face that we shall go on with this type of palliative of small farmer schemes which will get us into difficulties.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said the other day that if we joined the Common Market, and implied that even if we did not, there would be a considerable reduction in help given to farming in the way of subsidies.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member is aware of the pitfalls which await him if he goes further in that direction.

Mr. Mackie: I explained that there were difficulties, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall do my best to keep in order. I am sorry to get out of order, but you must appreciate that it is difficult to develop one's argument unless one can go astray a little in this way.
It is a fact which we must face some day that the small farmer's income must go down because of this situation we are faced with for the future. That is why I feel that some other form of help than the one suggested in these Schemes is needed. I went to west Derbyshire to help in the recent by-election and interviewed a tremendous number of small farmers to find what they were doing. I was surprised to find how few of them had taken advantage of this Scheme. It was quite extraordinary. I made inquiries and, like the hon. and gallant Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor), I found it was because they were just outside the 100 acre limit or debarred by some other small detail which had to be taken into account. I found that they certainly needed help.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said, their main income is from milk, sheep and eggs, items which have been cut. In that district any amount of farmers are retiring and their land is being taken over by other farms, but this is being done in a disordered fashion. One man had some bits of land six miles away from his farm. That kind of fragmentation is ridiculous. There should be something in the scheme to help those farmers.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that £13 million had been or will be spent this year. Through the reduction of income which we shall suffer— and I think there is nothing surer— even with these Schemes many of those farms will become non-viable. My plea—I hope that this will not be out of order, though it is not in the Scheme— is that there should be a plan for the amalgamation of small farms under some such Scheme as this, not under the Farm Improvement Scheme. As I say, that is the proper way to help small

farmers. This is what is being done in the Common Market countries; farms are being made bigger, and work is being found for farmers.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Is it not a fact that in the Common Market countries the average farm is very much smaller than ours?

Mr. Mackie: I could not agree more, but that does not determine the ideal size for us. We have about 80,000 farms of under 20 acres which are receiving no help at all. We should bring them into the picture. If we are to compete with the Common Market countries, we shall undoubtedly have to help small farmers, but help them in the way I suggest, by making their farms bigger through amalgamations, doing it in an orderly way and not as my hon. Friend the Member for Workingtion puts it, squeezing them out. But this is what is happening. Anyone who goes about the country sees that there is an enormous number of small farmers who are being squeezed out already, and not in an orderly way. There should be a scheme for the amalgamation of farms to give the farmers decent conditions and the sort of living which we all want them to have.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has already been christened at the Dispatch Box, but I add my congratulations to him now, as this is the first occasion on which I have had the opportunity to do so. I hope that he will be very happy in the responsibilities which have now fallen to him.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr Mackie) has spoken about the need to make the small farm a viable unit. This is what the Scheme is intended to do. I hope that what I have to say will be in order, having regard to paragraph 5 of the Scheme which provides that a small farmer must submit to the Minister for approval a farm business plan in respect of the business and that the Minister, after approving the plan, may accept him within the Scheme.
Like most hon. Members, I have been about in my constituency and have found that there are a great many small farmers who express considerable


anxiety at this time. I will give two examples, farmers in my constituency whom I know well, both of whom have had the advantage of coming under the Scheme. The first has a fairly small acreage. He is a dairy farmer. As a result of improvements he has been able to put in after putting forward his plan, he has been able to increase the number of cows he keeps on his holding, but he still finds, in present conditions, that he is not the financial success he would like to be. The other is a fanner who has spent his life with livestock. He is very successful with everything he does with a beef herd, but he has expressed the gravest anxiety to me, after taking every possible advantage of the Scheme, about the way his financial affairs are going.
There is no need to enlarge upon the lack of incentive which small farmers have in carrying on their operations. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) referred to the report by D. H. Evans of the University College of Wales. I draw attention to the actual weekly incomes of farmers on the better land, farming between 20 and 99 acres, as set out in that report. I have selected that report because it contains the most recent figures I can lay my hands on. On the better land, the weekly earnings for the farmer and his wife, on 20 to 99 acres, are £6 2s. 4d. Taking the National Farmers' Union accounts scheme covering the period from 1949–60, farmers with acreages under 50 showed a minimum income of £237 in 1950–51, which is about £4 10s. 0d. a week; and the maximum during that 11-year period was £551, which is 10 guineas a week, These figures cover not only the work of these men and their families but their investment, managerial capacity and the risks which they take in entering such enterprises.
There is an example of people with very small acreages who seem to be carrying on more successfully. In my area, I have tried to indicate to farmers that there is a precedent as to how they may be able to become financially more successful. I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will perhaps be able to indicate also that there is a possible way in which they can increase their financial success.
I am speaking of the farms which are run by the Land Settlement Association.

They have very small acreages. The average holding is only five acres. Yet, according to the 1960 annual report of the Association, 58 per cent. of the people have incomes of over £600 a year and 28 per cent. have over £1,000 a year. That compares very favourably with the figures I quoted earlier.

Mr. Mackie: The hon. Gentleman is talking now about people who are not farmers. A farmer grows produce on the land and converts it into food. These people carry stocks of pigs and hens and buy all the food for them.

Mr. Godman Irvine: We can hardly pursue that now, but, whether there is a difference or not, here are people who are on small acreages but are able to make a substantial income compared with those dealt with under this Scheme. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary should look at this to see whether a similar scheme could not be put forward for those covered by this Statutory Instrument to help make their holdings viable units.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary may be advised to look at it but not within the rules of this Scheme.

Mr. Godman Irvine: If it is not in order on this occasion to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to do so, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should indicate that I shall raise this on a more suitable occasion, when perhaps we can discuss it at greater length.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have welcomed this Scheme. It is going to cost £2½ million a year, which is almost the exact amount by which the fertiliser subsidy was reduced this year. That has since been followed by a reduction of £2½ million in prices by the fertiliser manufacturers, so the Government have done an extraordinarily good job. They have given the small fanner £2½ million and have managed to keep the fertiliser prices for the ensuing year at just about the same as last year. We must be grateful to the Government and at the same time thankful to the fertiliser manufacturers.
I wonder whether the description "farmer" is the right one to describe


these people, and whether it should not be "small producer". Whether the farmer has 20 acres or whether he has 200 acres is neither hare nor there. It is what he produces on the land which really counts. Like the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), I want to help the small farmer to make himself more efficient so that he can stay on the land and play his part in society.
If he is to get his business right, the first thing that the small farmer must be prepared to do is learn to specialise. He must not try to do too many things. If he specialises in one item, whether cows, pigs or even eggs, he should be able to do it properly. Next, he must simplify. He must not try to do too many things. Therefore, specialisation and simplification are needed. Following that, he must learn to co-operate, because without co-operation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) has said, the small farmer will be in great difficulty.
There are three or four products which the small farmer or producer can produce most efficiently. The problem about those products is that they are largely in over-supply. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) to try to poke fun at the Government about this, but one has only to go back to 1951 to know that milk, for example, which is one of the small farmer's biggest sources of income, was already causing difficulties of overproduction to the Labour Government of 1951. This is a problem which will face any Government, of any party, and it is one that we are trying to face now.
Milk, eggs and pigs are small-farmer products and we must try to get the small farmer to produce them as cheaply as he can. Expensive production is no good to anyone nowadays. Therefore, the object of the Scheme must be, and is, to try to get these producers to put up buildings and to organise their buildings and land so that they can produce at a lower price. It is remarkable what small farmers have been able to do in the last few years.
I will give only one example. In the last five years, the amount of feeding-stuffs needed to get a pig to bacon weight has been reduced by 1 cwt. That is a considerable improvement, the sort of improvement which could enable this

country to compete with any other country. That is exactly what has to be done. It is useless to think that we can isolate our small farmers from world economic facts, because we cannot. Therefore, I regard the Scheme as one Which will enable our small farmers to compete with farmers anywhere in the would. Unless it can stand up to that sort of judgment, it will fail.
My feeling is that in the last few years, the Scheme has started to go along the right lines. We shall not be able to continue to keep to strict acreages. What matters is production. That we can get efficient production, whether on a 20-acre or a 100-acre holding, is not the important factor. The important thing is cheap production.
A lot of small farmers can make an income in other ways than merely by straightforward farming. In the South-West and in the West, probably as much money is made by letting a farmhouse and having a few caravans on the farm as is made from farming. As a social problem, if we encourage farming for purely social reasons, that is the right way to encourage it. I should have thought that we could give more encouragement in the provision of bathrooms and decent living accommodation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is extremely difficult to bring that subject within the rules of order on this Scheme.

Mr. Prior: I will not pursue that one, Mr. Speaker, but it could all help the viability of the small farm.
I welcome the Scheme. I am very pleased to see my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on the Front Bench. The Minister comes from the eastern side of England and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary from the southwest—an excellent combination, the areas being respectively a large farming area and a small farming area. I hope that my hon. Friend will enjoy his time as Parliamentary Secretary. I am certain that he has got off to a very good start tonight.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon: I would add my congratulations to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on his elevation to office. From time to time


we see different men in his position, but the arguments always seem to be the same; they are trotted out with unfailing regularity year after year. I am afraid that not a great deal of progress is made.
I do not look upon the Scheme with any great favour—and I have not from the beginning. I feel that the greatest good can come to the small farmer by the amalgamation of small farms into larger units. We should aim for the economic unit. Figures presented by one of my hon. Friends show that the small farmer is in very grave difficulties.
The hon. Gentleman said that there were 41,000 fanners now working under the Scheme and that up to the end of May £13 million had been spent—an average of £300 per farm. That will not put small farmers on a sound footing. The hon. Gentleman hopes to distribute among those farmers £29 million finally, and that will not put them on an economic footing. It is not the Government who are putting the squeeze on the small farmers. It is the economic circumstances which are developing on every side which are bearing on them. The small farmer brings pressure to bear upon himself. His main sources of income are milk, eggs and pigs. We have a surplus of milk. The small farmer is adding to it. Every gallon he adds to the surplus lowers the overall price. So he is creating conditions which are against himself. The same will happen with eggs, which the Government are already heavily subsidising, and pigs. So the operation of the Scheme creates conditions in which the small farmer himself creates economic conditions against his own interests.
According to the Scheme, the limit which can be given to one farmer is £1,000. What is that to a farmer with a 100-acre farm? What will happen to the small farmers when the Scheme finishes and they have to bear the full effect of the economic circumstances which are working against them? They cannot be put on an economic basis by this Scheme and they will be back in a few years in the same position as that from which they are to be rescued.
The economic conditions have been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who showed their effect in Wales. Since 1947, 3,500

farms have been amalgamated with larger ones. That is the effect of economic conditions, and the money being given to these small farmers will be gradually taken by farmers who take over a number of farms and amalgamate them into larger ones. That is the only way out. Without labouring the point any (further, I would say that this Scheme needs looking at again. It needs very careful re-examination. We need something far more fundamental, something which will be far more permanent—for this is only temporary. We need something which is permanent which we can put—[An HON. MEMBER: "When?"]—I will tell the hon. Member when we have a Labour Government.

Mr. Speaker: There is a real difficulty about this. I have been extremely tolerant with the hon. Member in his ingenuity, but we cannot, under the rules of order applicable to this discussion, discuss measures which might be taken. We are concerned with this Scheme.

Mr. Kenyon: I am sorry, Me. Speaker.

Mr. Harold Davies: We have all had it, do not worry.

Mr. Kenyon: I am not worrying, but I thought I was in order. I will not pursue the point—I just cannot think of a way to get over it.
The point I have stressed is something which the Government will have to face. They can bring in this Scheme and then another one, for this is temporary. They have to face it, that these Schemes will run out and fail, and that we need something far more permanent for the small farmers in order that they will be able to exist.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Jasper More: I should like to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend and to express my apology for the fact that, owing to reasons beyond my control, I was not able to be in the House to hear him present the Scheme. I should also like to pay my tribute to the work done by his predecessor.
I should be dearly tempted to follow the hon. Friend for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) but for certain observations made by yourself, Mr. Speaker. I shall


endeavour to restrict myself to the Scheme, but I could perhaps refer, as did the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), to the work done by some of the small associations of farmers towards focusing the interest of Members of all parties on these Schemes intended to help small farmers. I must observe in that context that it is appalling that there should not be one single Member of the Liberal Party 'here tonight when we are discussing a Scheme of this kind.
As as member for some years of the small holdings committee of the county council on which I serve I listened with some astonishment to the observations which have been made about the necessity of enlarging small farms. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must bear in mind the fact that in almost every county we are administering Small Farmer Schemes which owe their origin to a deliberate policy of sub-dividing large farms. I think that the profitability of these farms has on the whole been justified in recent years, and will certainly be aided by a Scheme of this kind.
I am sorry that there has not been more reference to the social value of these small farms, as opposed to their economic problems, because I am convinced that the farming ladder is one of the most important things in the agricultural picture of this country, and that a Scheme of this kind is greatly to be commended on that account.
Reference has been made to these Schemes being unjust to the efficient farmer. The basis of these Schemes has always been acreage. It has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) that the basis should be the actual product of the farm concerned. A more accurate basis would be the profitability of individual farms, because obviously the basis of 20 to 100 acres can be very misleading in deciding whether or not the business in question is really a small farm.
Whatever the theoretical difficulties of this Scheme, I am sure that it will make a valuable contribution to a real economic problem, and I am glad to give it my support.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: We have had an interesting debate on these two Schemes, and I should like to thank hon. Members

for the kind things they have said about my first trial in this office. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) went a little further than I would dare to go this evening. I have not the powers of balance, and neither the ability to find my way round the rules of order nor the experience of the hon. Gentleman.
I should like to take up one point raised by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) and by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan). When the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments reported to the House on the purport of the Scheme, they took the objection that although Section 6 of the Act imposes a general limitation of 150 acres on small farm business of any time, in this Scheme we have imposed a limitation of 100 acres on the day on which the farm business plan is submitted to the Minister for approval.
It is correctly pointed out that a farmer who has less than 100 acres when the plan is submitted, may, by adding land, have more than 150 acres when the time comes for payment, and it is suggested that there was nothing in the Scheme to prevent such a farmer being paid the grant, although he has ceased to qualify under the Act. In so far as this criticism implies that the Scheme is legally not in order, we have what we believe to be the complete answer, which is published in the form of a Memoranda to the Committee's minutes. The argument, which is technical, is set out in full in paragraph 3 of the Memorandum.
Perhaps I can summarise the argument as follows: according to the definition of a small farmer business in Section 6 of the parent Act, the land comprised in the business must be under 150 acres. I think that all hon. Members would agree to that. We have not redefined again the expression in the Scheme, and this is in accordance with the usual practice, where an expression is intended to have the same meaning as in the parent Act. This is taken care of either by the context—as we are confident is the case here—or by going back to Section 31 of the Interpretation Act of 1889. That is the Act which is used for the interpretation of such matters as this.
It follows that when we talk about a small farm business in the Scheme we mean a business comprising not more


than 150 acres of land at any time. The difficulty has arisen because the Act enables my right hon. Friend to impose additional limits on small farm businesses which in this case is the lower limit. He does this in paragraph 4 by saying that the small farm business to to which the Scheme shall apply is a business—among other things—of less than 100 acres on the day on which the plan is submitted for approval. On any other day it is sufficient as long as it is less than 150 acres. Nothing that we have said is intended to imply that the limit should be 250 acres. I think that that answers the query raised by hon. Members on this point.
I was also asked how many of these schemes had been approved in Scotland. The number is 1,974, out of 4,900 eligible farms. The best thing that I can do—because I do not want to keep the House at this hour—is to try to answer as many points as I can in a short time. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) and the hon. Member for Workington raised the other main point, concerning the acreage limits, upper and lower. They wanted the Scheme to go below 20 acres. This argument has been put forward on many previous occasions by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but we must remember that this is a once-for-all grant from the Government to the small farmer, to make his business not merely viable but more viable. It should also make him more able to face competition in the future, and to increase his profitability and his economic stability as a farmer.
When we go below 20 acres we rapidly come into the realm of the small part-time farmer, who needs to work his holding for perhaps only two or three hours a day. This would mean that the farming of this land was not the full-time occupation of this type of farmer and therefore would probably fall outside the original intention of the Act, namely, that, after the application of the Scheme it should provide a reasonable living for a person working full-time on that land.
There are always hard cases—hon. Members will realise that I have come across them—where somebody fells just below the limit and is thereby excluded. But we have taken care of that to some

extent, in that we have varied the man-days, so that we can include somebody who has a potential of increasing his working time to 275 man-days, although he may start below that figure in the first place. We have varied the lower limit as far as we can in that respect. But once we vary the limit of the acreage we run into a great many difficulties.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) asked for the top limit to be raised. This would apply particularly to farms in Wales, on marginal land and hill land. I do not want to talk about other schemes or grants, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that there are other schemes designed to help that type of fanner.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor) must, I think, have misunderstood what I said in my opening speech. I did not talk about hill farming in the way he suggested but said that the farmers in receipt of grants under the hill farm livestock improvement legislation had been excluded from benefiting under this Scheme even though they might otherwise qualify. But now we had found a method to bring them in and at the same time be satisfied that they were not receiving two grants at the same time for the same thing. This will mean that about 250 more farmers will benefit.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) and other hon. Members including the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) suggested that we were not dealing properly with the small farmers and that more co-operation was needed among them. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) gave some good advice to the small farmers regarding what they could do to help themselves and said that one of the best ways was to co-operate and use the modern techniques to do so. This was also one of the main points in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine).
I am glad to say that farmer co-operation is progressing very well and I hope that the small farmers will be helped by these two Schemes. I am grateful for the tributes hon. Members paid to the work of the N.A.A.S. which has done a great deal to help small


farmers of all types, but it is asking a little too much to suggest that the N.A.A.S. should go in for the management of a group of small farms. My hon. Friend also mentioned his interest in the Land Settlement Association which does not come within the scope of these Schemes. I am glad that the recently achieved results have been so outstanding. Undoubtedly the small farmer will be helped further by these Schemes to improve his efficiency and productivity. It cannot be said that the Government are not helping the small farmer. These Schemes are provided for the express purpose of helping him to improve his profitability and efficiency so that he may face the competition which is ever increasing.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Small Farmer (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.

Small Farmers (Scotland) Scheme, 1962 [draft laid before the House, 27th June] approved.—[Mr. Leburn.]

Orders of the Day — H.M.S. "GANGES"

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel]

11.39 p.m.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: I am very glad to have this opportunity to raise the question of the qualifications for training in H.M.S. "Ganges". H.M.S. "Ganges" is a well-known Royal Naval training establishment at Shotley, near Ipswich. I think that I can best introduce the topic by recounting what happened recently to the son of one of my constituents, who is the licensee of a hotel at Chaddesden. He is fortunate to have a very fine son, whom I have met, called Trevor Daniels, aged 15. For the last two and a half years this boy has entertained a very keen ambition to join the Navy. At that time two and a half years ago he joined the Royal Naval Cadets and has attended regularly at Markeaton Park in Derby as a cadet. During this time it had always been his ambition to join up as soon as he could.
In February of this year he applied to join as a junior seaman. The recruiting officer at Derby explained to him that, as he had not got the G.C.E. qualification, various of the trades in the Navy would be debarred to him. The boy was in the "C" stream in his school, so it was known to the authorities from the start that he was not a boy with high educational qualifications. He is a boy of considerable character, very keen to get in and, 1 imagine, the type of lad that the Navy would be very glad to have.
On 19th February he sat in Derby for an entrance examination in two subjects, English and mathematics. He passed those examinations. On 27th February he underwent a medical examination to see if he was medically fit, which he was. He was then signed on. He was given a copy of an impressive document which he had signed himself and which was witnessed by two Naval personnel called, "Candidate's Acknowledgement Form". It begins with these words:
I, Trevor James Daniels, understand that I am joining the Royal Navy as a Junior 2nd class for service as a seaman, or communication rating for a period of twelve years' Total Service: of which period Nine years' Service from the age of 18 years will be rendered in the Royal Navy … and the balance in the Royal Fleet Reserve.
There is then a paragraph to the effect that the conditions of service have been explained to him. The document ends in this way:
I acknowledge that I am bound to serve until the end of my engagement and understand that earlier discharge is permitted only in exceptional circumstances.
The House can well imagine that this was a proud moment for this boy, who thought and believed that he had been accepted for the Royal Navy.
The next thing that happened was that he received a communication dated 13th April. It was a letter inviting him to attend at the recruiting office on 1st May for entry into the Navy. In the middle of the letter there were these rather ominous words:
It must be clearly understood that your entry will be subject to final approval at that establishment.
The letter then told him what to bring with him. He was told that he would get his uniform on reporting and that his civilian clothing would be returned


to has home. He was given a railway warrant. He went up to H.M.S. "Ganges" at Ipswich. He was issued with his uniform and his kit. His civilian clothes were duly sent home. He found himself one of an intake of 200 boys of the same age. During the first fortnight many naval matters were explained to them, but they had only about four hours of what could properly be described as schooling, which were all in mathematics. For some reason he had three different instructors.
The boy is very frank about it. Quite dearly, these (lessons ware above his head. He told me that the matter was new to him. He says, "I could not follow it very well". After a fortnight he and all the other boys underwent another examination. It was a two-hours' written examination.
At the end of the month, on 29th May, his boy was told (hat he had failed that examination, that he would consequently be discharged from the Royal Navy and that he was to go home the next day. That duly happened. The next day he was sent home—and not he alone. I understand that thirteen other boys from his intake were also sent home, making a total of 14. Seven per cent. of the total intake were sent home after one month.
A letter was sent to the boy's father which arrived on the same day as the boy. It was from the captain in command of H.M.S. "Ganges". It said:
I much regret to inform you that your son Trevor is to be discharged from the Royal Navy 'Unsuitable'.
I know that Trevor has tried hard, but unfortunately he has still fallen well below the standard we expect at this stage of his course in school. After consulting with the Officers which whom he is most concerned I have reluctantly concluded that he should be discharged ".
He goes on to say:
We are sorry to lose Trevor since he has seemed happy here and has tried hard. He has a pleasant disposition and co-operated well with his Instructors. I am sure you will realise that as he has no chance of keeping up with the course in H.M.S. Ganges it is better for him to make a fresh start now and so avoid a more severe disappointment later".
He points out that the boy can apply for re-entry to the Navy after he has reached the age of 16¼ if he continues to work at mathematics, making quite clear that

it was mathematics and nothing else which rendered him unsuitable.
I should make it quite clear that I am in no way trying to get this decision reversed, nor is the boy's father, nor the boy. They accept and understand that he is not up to the required standard. Surprisingly perhaps, the boy also is not disheartened by the treatment he has had. He is determined to work hard and try again to get into the Royal Navy. He is attending night school classes in mathematics. What the father feels, and I think rightly feels, is that if a certain standard of ability in mathematics is required by H.M.S. "Ganges" and the boy undergoes a test in mathematics before he is accepted, it is disgraceful if that test is not adequate to discover whether the boy is in fact up to required standard.
It appears monstrous that a boy should understand that he is accepted and communicate to his family and friends that he has been accepted and feel all the joy that his ambition has been fulfilled and then realise a month later that all his hopes are dashed. I am sure the Minister will appreciate the feelings of a boy aged 16 when he is subjected to all the taunts and jokes for his failure.
What other establishment would dream of dealing with boys in this way, what school, what college? It would be scandalous if they attempted to do so. It is not as if this were a single isolated case. This happened to fourteen boys out of an intake of 200. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten me and the House by giving information as to whether this is an average figure in other intakes or if it is exceptional. On any basis for this intake alone these figures appear to disclose a disgraceful state of affairs. It is not right to sport with the feelings of young boys like this and take in boys without having by the preliminary test found whether or not they have reached the qualifications required to enable them to undergo their training.
A minor point in this connection is the waste of public funds involved in issuing warrants, getting boys who are to be discharged in a matter of days brought into the Navy and have them issued with kit. What happens to their kit and equipment? The boy was given to understand that his kit, apart from


the actual suit, would be burned and destroyed. I find that hard to believe. If it is not so does it mean that some other boys coming in on a later intake will be issued with second-hand clothing? These are minor points. The main question is what possible justification can there be for subjecting a boy to a test in mathematics and telling him only a month later that he is not up to the required standard of mathematics although he passed that test?

11.50 p.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) on his reappearance in the House. It is nice to see Mm back. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised this subject, but I do not wish it to be felt that, as the Admiralty Minister responsible in the House for all naval questions, I regard Adjournment de-debates as the only occasions when information may be solicited. I am always available to see hon. Members if they have problems, to answer their letters and to answer Parliamentary Questions, with, if necessary, an Adjournment debate at the end. However, this debate gives me an opportunity to put some of the facts before the House and to clear up some of the anxieties which the hon. Gentleman obviously has and which he has voiced in calm and statesmanlike terms this evening.
I endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said about this boy. He is a good boy, the type of boy we should like to have in the Navy. He did his first test at a recruiting centre on 19th February. It is (true that arithmetic was the subject in which he appeared to be weakest. The tests which we conduct are exactly the same in every one of the fifty recruiting centres throughout the country, and they are designed to give us a broad picture of a boy's potential There is more than a test in arithmetic. I think that the hon. Gentleman suggested that there were only two tests, arithmetic and English. In fact, the boys are tested in spelling, there is also a test to see whether they have an elementary knowledge of practical things, and there is a test of mental agility. As the Navy becomes more technical, it is important that we should try to forecast whether these young boys of

15 will match the requirements and be able to keep up with their classes and become useful members of the Royal Navy. This four-part test in practical matters, arithmetic, spelling and general intelligence takes thirty minutes.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that it is an imperfect test. In fact, we have followed the careers of 20,000 seamen who have taken the test in order to see whether it has proved to be a fair measure of their potential. This research has produced considerable confirmation that the test is fair. We find that the better boys do in the test the more quickly they get promotion the further they advance in their careers and the longer they stay in the Navy. We take pride in the fact that this is so. In my view, therefore, this initial test is not in doubt.
There is, of course—the present case is a typical example—the problem of the marginal recruit, the boy whose test produces a mark close to the pass mark. We pass a boy with 45 out of 100, and this boy's mark was 46. We have a long experience of what to expect from these boys. In the vast majority of cases, we find that those who achieve a pass mark make good in their training, and, even though the test may reveal a weakness in one or other subject, we feel that it is generally worth persevering.
I acknowledge that when we have a boy of good character and keenness, with a record as this boy has in the Sea Cadets, the recruiter is more likely to take a lenient view and say, perhaps, that the boy will make good when he goes to H.M.S. "Ganges". I think that the hon. Gentleman spoke of 7 par cent. of our intake, and I think that this is about right—

Mr. MacDermot: Disgraceful.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: To shout "Disgraceful" is not really to be very helpful. May I be allowed to continue my argument? I did say that the hon. Gentleman used statesmanlike terms. Perhaps I ought to withdraw that.
Our intake in 1961–62 was 2,700 boys. In the previous year it was no more than 2,100. We have been expanding our intake, as the Navy wants these young boys and wants to help to train them. In spite of this increase, our failure figure has been only 50, which


represents an over-generous assessment in the marginal recruiting of just one boy for each recruiting centre in one year. I doubt whether in our national education system we would find a better result. Each recruiting centre throughout the country makes a marginal assessment on those who fall in the grey area and makes a mistake of one boy a year. I do not think that unreasonable.
We could, of course, raise the standard of these tests and say that 50 is the pass mark. But this would be to destroy and discourage good potential material and we have not thought that right. This is a matter of balance, and I think that the hon. Member will agree on that. Some boys are obviously through; then there is the middle area which is uncertain; and then there is the area below that whose boys we cannot take.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. Here we are dealing with a specific qualification requiring a given standard of ability in mathematics. Surely it is not beyond the ingenuity of the Royal Navy to devise a test which will find out whether off not a boy of 15 has the mathematical ability to do this course?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: What the hon. Member says seems reasonable on the face of it. I can show him the papers outside—and perhaps this matter could have been better dealt with there than in the House. We have the analysis of 20,000 results of seaman boys, and these show that there is nothing much wrong with the test.
This boy got 11 out of 30 for arithmetic. He reported to "Ganges" on 1st May and got the classification test, when he scored 9 out of 20 in the arithmetic test. Again, this was a pass mark. On the 18th May he sat what we call the "Schoolmaster's test", which is more in the nature of an ordinary examination than an 11-plus examination. In that test he got none out of 100. It seemed that this boy could add and subtract quite efficiently but that he could not do long divisions and multiplications.
"Ganges" still did not reject him— and that is a point missed in the hon. Member's remarks, by accident I am sure. They were so surprised that they

gave him a repeat test, with the same long division and multiplication, but changing the figures. He sat for this on 25th May and he scored 15 out of 100. They then said, not unreasonably, that despite their desire to take the boy, they felt that he was bound to hold back his classmates and would not make the grade at that stage. They therefore felt they had to reject him.
There are two valid points of criticism. First, was it right to give such short notification? I apologise for this. It was done for one reason only—that it was decided to give him a second chance. Had that other chance not been given, the notification would have been longer.
A letter was sent to the parents two days beforehand, and it was followed by a telegram. I may say at this point that only 60 per cent. of parents acknowledge the letters. But because of the second test, there was much less warning than is desirable. I have drawn the attention of the commanding officer to this. Normally there would be three or four days' notice, and this is to be adhered to as strictly as possible. The other point, which also is a valid one, is whether we ought, perhaps, to warn parents and boys that they will have a further test when they get there and that if they do not match up to the test there is the danger, as happened in this case, that they will be rejected.
Before dealing with that point, I should like to revert to the hon. Member's question of whether it is typical that roughly 7 per cent. are rejected. I have the figures for January to March, 1962, when we entered 931 boys and 40 were discharged for academic failures. That was 4 per cent. From April to June, 1962, we entered 639 boys and 45, or 7 per cent., were discharged. Over the first six months of this year, therefore, the total entered was 1,570, of whom 85 were rejected, which is rather less than 6 per cent.
In addition, another 6 per cent. are rejected either for disciplinary reasons or because they cannot settle into naval life, they do not like it or they have faults of character which, it is felt, are not likely to be ironed out in the tuition which we give them. Therefore, it is not an unrepresentative figure.
I have examined carefully the various papers that are sent to a boy and his parents. One is what I call the consent paper, which is seat to the parents of juniors under the age of 21, and which states:
I hereby certify that my son or ward … has my full consent to join the Navy.
It its right that those parents should be warned that if a boy does not match up or if he holds back his classmates, we will have to send him home and he will have to have, as happened in this case, special tuition, otherwise it is unlikely that he will be successful when he has another try.
I therefore suggest that something in the following sense should be inserted as an explanatory note in what I call the consent form, which would be sent by the recruiter to the parent:
Parents will appreciate that a small number of boys who have passed the entry test may find either that they are unable to maintain the necessary progress under training or that they are unsuited to naval life. It will be necessary "—
perhaps it may be necessary—
to discharge such boys, both in their own interests and in the interests of the Service.
If that is put in the form, parents will be forewarned that the recruiting test is of a rudimentary nature and that a second test on arrival at the establishment, which we call the schoolmaster's test, a more rigorous one in a rather wider spectrum, will be the final judgment whether the boy is likely to match up to the needs of the Service. For this reason, because he has drawn my attention to the matter, I am grateful to the hon. Member and I hope that he will feel that this will put right an omission and weakness which, I think, exists in our present system.

Mr. MacDermot: I should like to thank the Minister for the helpful suggestion which he has made. I appreciate that every Service Department must preserve the right to discharge people who prove to be unsuitable through no fault of their own be-

cause something comes to light later which shows that they do not fit into Service life. A warning to this effect certainly would be most helpful.
Would not the Minister also consider a little further whether it would not be wise, perhaps, to consider making the initial test a little less rudimentary? If it is a regular feature that 7 per cent. are discharged after a month and that, I gather from the hon. Gentleman's figures, half of those are discharged on academic grounds, this shows that the test is too rudimentary. Bearing in mind what effect this will have on the feelings of the boys, it is a serious consideration. I suggest that it should be considered whether this test should not be stiffened up a little so that it is able to sort the wheat from the chaff more efficiently at that stage.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer that. I am able to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that our recruiting authorities are looking at this very point. We are always examining whether we can raise the standard of the tests a little and reduce wastage without missing potentially good boys. We are considering whether we could make the initial test a little more comprehensive, a little better, so that the grey area where boys are marginal is reduced. I knew that this was being done before the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned it.
In view of what he has said, I will pay special attention to it to see whether we can further improve what I think he will acknowledge has in essence been fairly satisfactory. I know that some boys are rejected, but when we follow the careers of the 20,000 seamen who have done the test it is clear that there is nothing much wrong with it. If minor adjustments can improve it further, we shall be pleased to make them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.